Sorry about the late follow-up, just catching up on a couple of lists.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 06:42:34PM -0500, Ken Winke wrote:
>
> - I'd like to be able to create a quick ranking of the most popular
> rules, and also the least popular rules that get used on these corpuses.
> I think that m
en_US?
...ken
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Ken Winke'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Useful reporting with SA
> I may be _
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Winke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Useful reporting with SA
>
>
> Okay...we're making good baby steps here.
>
> I believ
Okay...we're making good baby steps here.
I believe I've got mass-check to work on my corpuses...creating two log
files of spam.log and ham.log.
When I run those through hit-frequence, it does generate a giant table of
info for me, but I can't seem to get any of the results that are created
like
At 11:09 AM 8/19/2003 -0500, Ken Winke wrote:
I assume the rules I want to test go into mass-check.cf.
No, as per the file itself, only scores can go there.
Put the rules you want to test into your local.cf, or in with the
spamassassin rules.
(note: if you run mass-check from a directory tree of
> All of the above features can be obtained by running the mass-check tool,
> followed by the hit-frequencies tool. This will generate the exact same
> report as the STATISTICS.txt file that comes with SA, but for YOUR corpus,
> ruleset and scores. In fact, this is exactly how the SA developers do
At 06:42 PM 8/18/2003 -0500, Ken Winke wrote:
I've had SA 2.55 with bayes running for some time now, and I'd like to
take it a bit further. Here's what I'm wondering and thinking...I'd like
to know if others do similar spam maintenance and if they could respond
back with the best methods for ga
