On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I think our goal, though, should be getting more mass-check submitters.
Oh, yes, definitely.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0x
On 09/09/2010 11:36 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, RW wrote:
>
>>> The current rules are 39 months before the ham ages out.
>>
>> If someone has done an empirical study that shows that the FP rate
>> deteriorates significantly after 39 months then that's fine. If the
>> figure has ju
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, RW wrote:
The current rules are 39 months before the ham ages out.
If someone has done an empirical study that shows that the FP rate
deteriorates significantly after 39 months then that's fine. If the
figure has just been plucked out of the air, I don't see the sense in
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:03:22 -0500
Daniel McDonald wrote:
> On 9/9/10 7:46 AM, "RW" wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Would it not be sensible to keep ham for as long as necessary, and
> > supplement the spam corpus with spamtraps?
>
> Ham is plentiful
Then relaxing the limit wont be needed, and it wont
On 9/9/10 7:46 AM, "RW" wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
> John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, RW wrote:
>
>>> What's the reason for the age limit?
>>
>> The nature of spam (and, to a lesser degree, ham, barring major
>> changes like the widespread adoption of HTML ema
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, RW wrote:
> > What's the reason for the age limit?
>
> The nature of spam (and, to a lesser degree, ham, barring major
> changes like the widespread adoption of HTML email) changes over
> time. A rule that hit lots
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, RW wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Tony Finch wrote:
sa-update for version 3.3 is usually very quiet - last update 4
July; previous one 12 June. We have been getting daily updates
since Saturday morning. Is this expec
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> > sa-update for version 3.3 is usually very quiet - last update 4
> > July; previous one 12 June. We have been getting daily updates
> > since Saturday morning. Is this expected?
>
> It's expe
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, John Hardin wrote:
>
> It's expected and very welcome. It means the age-limited nightly masscheck
> corpora have once again gotten large enough that the score generator can
> safely publish updated rules and scores on a regular basis.
Ah, good news :-)
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.fi
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Tony Finch wrote:
sa-update for version 3.3 is usually very quiet - last update 4 July;
previous one 12 June. We have been getting daily updates since Saturday
morning. Is this expected?
It's expected and very welcome. It means the age-limited nightly masscheck
corpora hav
sa-update for version 3.3 is usually very quiet - last update 4 July;
previous one 12 June. We have been getting daily updates since Saturday
morning. Is this expected?
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7,
DECR
11 matches
Mail list logo
