On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, 6:42:05 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> There is one SARE ninja testing guru that will come online with SURBL when
> 3.0 is released. I expect a LOT of testing, because he is addicted to it :)
> He's actually been trying to work with another ninja to test for SURBL FPs
>
*snip*
>
>Thanks for your stats and checking, and yes please anyone else
>with ham corpora, please check for FPs.
>
There is one SARE ninja testing guru that will come online with SURBL when
3.0 is released. I expect a LOT of testing, because he is addicted to it :)
He's actually been trying to wo
On Sunday, September 5, 2004, 10:32:57 AM, Ryan Thompson wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote to SURBL Discuss and SpamAssassin Users:
>> Basically the higher the FP rate, the less useful a list is.
> ... or, rather, the lower it ought to be scored.
Yes, but please remember that not everyone has the ability
Jeff Chan wrote to SURBL Discuss and SpamAssassin Users:
Basically the higher the FP rate, the less useful a list is.
... or, rather, the lower it ought to be scored.
Does anyone have other corpus stats to share, in particular
FP rates?
Sure. All of these messages were received in the past 10 days
On Sunday, September 5, 2004, 3:30:49 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Seeing those data it would be very interesting if we could test a seperate
> list. Is that possible? I would like to test the Prolo and Joe's list
> combined, without the rest of the WS list. I can generate the data for a
> tes
