Looks great Daniel -- go ahead and check it in. Probably skip the iterations
stuff for now.
C
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
DQ> Based on these results, my inclination is to add all of the above rules
DQ> and let the GA sort it out. They all look pretty good to me except for
DQ> DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06 (
Kingsley G. Morse Jr. writes:
> Being an old AI/GA programmer who just started using
> SA, your post fascinates me. Thanks for the update on
> your research.
> [...]
> It seems to me that it would be interesting to consider a _summary_ of
>
> a.) The percentage of false positives and
>
Daniel,
Being an old AI/GA programmer who just started using
SA, your post fascinates me. Thanks for the update on
your research.
On Mon:22:07, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
[...]
> My only gripe is that having so many rules is somewhat clumsy in the
> scores file, even using arguments. What if spamass
I'm in the process of revising the date difference testing. So far,
here's what I've done:
- fix timezone addition/subtraction (it was sign-reversed!)
- don't compare unparseable dates (caused false positives)
- don't require seconds (per RFC-2822)
- added support for North American time
