On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote: > > From: Thornton B.Roddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Newsgroups: gmane.linux.debian.devel.debbugs > > Subject: Bug#202373: traitor offstage > > Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:56:58 +0300 > [] > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 > > (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on rietz.debian.org > > X-Spam-Level: *** > > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.5 required=4.0 tests=WBRS autolearn=no > > version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 > > Resent-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:06:02 +0000 > > Smart dude have managed to get here with all that CC and stuff. > > My question is, is `required=4.0' justified? How much score have the > most wired bug report with garbage, as bug info? A wild guess is > -0.0 .. 2.0, but 4.0?
The question is at which point the false positives and false negatives are appropriate. The lower the score goes, the more false positives we have, which are more insidious and difficult to deal with than false negatives. Additionally, Blars Blarson actually examines messages within that range and adapts the rules to catch them in the future and deletes them from the bugs as appropriate. So yes, in short, it is justified. Don Armstrong -- Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't bet, you can't win. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p240 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
