Arpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 27 February 2002, Craig R Hughes said:
> > >181 98 83 RATWARE
> >
> > That's interesting. I wonder if the RATWARE regex is too broad --
> > perhaps if it were toned down a bit, it would be better focussed on
> > spam. This ough
Hi,
> On 27 February 2002, Craig R Hughes said:
> >181 98 83 RATWARE
>
> That's interesting. I wonder if the RATWARE regex is too broad --
> perhaps if it were toned down a bit, it would be better focussed on
> spam. This ought to be a well-focused rule; how many peo
On 27 February 2002, Craig R Hughes said:
>181 98 83 RATWARE
That's interesting. I wonder if the RATWARE regex is too broad --
perhaps if it were toned down a bit, it would be better focussed on
spam. This ought to be a well-focused rule; how many people use
spamware
>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: GA coming up with wacky scores? was Re: [SAtalk] Announcing 2.1
release
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:28:07PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Duncan Findlay wrote:
>
> > Ummm... I'd be heavily inclined to set these spam scores to
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:28:07PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Duncan Findlay wrote:
>
> > Ummm... I'd be heavily inclined to set these spam scores to 0.01. It's not
> > that I don't trust the GA, it's just that if these are the outputs, they
> > aren't needed in the first place.
>
> That's n
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 03:30:32AM -0700, Michael Moncur wrote:
> I might be wrong, but I think there's something seriously amiss with the new
> GA-evolved scores - they don't seem to have an upper boundary (many are 9-10 or
> so) or a lower (some are negative). Some examples that can't be right:
I might be wrong, but I think there's something seriously amiss with the new
GA-evolved scores - they don't seem to have an upper boundary (many are 9-10 or
so) or a lower (some are negative). Some examples that can't be right:
score 25FREEMEGS_URL -4.606
score BE_AMAZED
