On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Martin Pool wrote:
>
> (I've only been using SA for a little while, so you can take this
> with a bit of salt.)
i just started using it too. just switched to from 2.01 to 2.1 though.
> It really does seem to me like the weightings are less useful in 2.1
> than in 2.01. Som
On 2/28/02 10:10 AM, "Martin Pool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SpamAssassin looks really cool, but at the moment I've had to go back
> to 2.01 to feel comfortable that I won't get incorrect results.
I think a good compromise until I can get 2.11 out is to use 2.1 with
Michael Moncur's contribut
On 27 Feb 2002, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Rogers wrote:
> > LINE_OF_YELLING seems to have jumped from a score of 0.70 in SA 2.01 to a
> > score of 5.442 in SA 2.1. This strikes me as rather a lot.
(I've only been using SA for a little while, so you can take this with
a bit
Daniel Rogers wrote:
> LINE_OF_YELLING seems to have jumped from a score of 0.70 in SA 2.01 to a
> score of 5.442 in SA 2.1. This strikes me as rather a lot. Aren't there
> still people who still write their messages all in caps because they don't
> know any better?
Yeah, like lawyers, warrante
In the corpus, LINE_OF_YELLING appears almost 9000 times in spam, and about 1300
times in nonspam. So I'm guessing that when it's in the nonspam, there are
other telltales that it's not really spam, and those rules have been assigned
-ve scores by the GA. There are only 562 false positives fr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Wednesday, 27. February 2002 20:35 schrieb Daniel Rogers:
> LINE_OF_YELLING seems to have jumped from a score of 0.70 in SA 2.01 to a
> score of 5.442 in SA 2.1. This strikes me as rather a lot. Aren't there
> still people who still write their m
