Yes, I just suggested that :) From now on after running the GA, I'll
manually go through and look at scores which are -ve and consider
whether it makes sense to remove the rules.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 17:14, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >So, the score for that fluctuates semi-randomly over time bu
rules would be the better route to take.
>
> Gene
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Daniel Pittman
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:20 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> &g
>So, the score for that fluctuates semi-randomly over time but, because
>it's never selected for by the GA, it drifts gently toward irrelevance.
Hi,
Can't the GA be used to tag the rules that are not relevant?
That way they could be eliminated from SA and make it lighter
alltogether.
Olivier
s, I would say
adding more relavent rules would be the better route to take.
Gene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Daniel Pittman
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
On 14 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I'll investigate -- it's weird, because both GAs seem to assign low
> scores to "HUNZA_DIET_BREAD" even though it obviously only appears in
> the spam corpus, and not in non-spam.
Sure, but how much of the spam corpus do they show up in?
> In fact my GA whi
