Michael Moncur wrote:
>>body CORRECT_FOR_EXCHANGE /This message is in MIME format/
>>describe CORRECT_FOR_EXCHANGE Correct for MIME 'null block'
>>
>
>FYI, I seem to recall SA already having a test like this. You might want to
>double-check.
>
Yes, it's called MIME_NULL_BLOCK. (I'm lookin
> To me, -ve scores on tests can also be used to "offset" spammy messages in
> clean email. I have several of these of my own creation:
Well, yes, that's true - SpamAssassin already includes a bunch of these, such
as COPYRIGHT_CLAIMED and PHP_SIGNATURE. What I was talking about was the fact
that
> I know there are theoretical reasons why this might make sense, but I don't
> see any benefit in the real world for scores like these. The high scores
> increase the chance of a random false positive - regardless of the size of
> the existing corpus - and if the negative ones indicate that the r
> SPAM: Hit! (4.9 points) BODY: URL of page called "remove"
> SPAM: Hit! (6.5 points) BODY: Link to a URL containing "remove"
No, not impressive. Those two scores would put a whole lot of honest opt-in
web "flyers" and likely many mailing lists in the spam bucket.
I'm strongly opposed to any
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:15:20PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> I meant single score, but yet, that message is pretty impressive. I assume it
> was not a false-positive :)
Uh, yeah, it was real spam. :)
I just found a 47.1 hits one, even though it had two -ve scores
(HTTP_USERNAME_USED and
CTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Troubling new scores in 2.1 release
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:00:29PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> > Yes, the large rule scores probably do make the system more sensitive to minor
> > variations in input. How
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:00:29PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Yes, the large rule scores probably do make the system more sensitive to minor
> variations in input. However, they also apparently lead to more accurate
> scores. It is interesting that even running unconstrained over 50,000
>
fer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Troubling new scores in 2.1 release
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
>
> > This isn't really a problem. It can actually be helpful too to allow
> >
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> This isn't really a problem. It can actually be helpful too to allow
> the GA to do its own thing [...]
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tom Lipkis wrote:
> With large scores like this (positive or negative), very small
> perturbations in input can cause wildly
I was aware of the stuff you're pointing out below. This is basically caused by
using the new evolver to do the scoring. Previously, scores were limited to the
range 0.01-5, now they are unlimited, and allowed to go -ve. A side effect of
this is that rules which are really non-discriminators
10 matches
Mail list logo
