it's not corrected, that's the point...
The scoring occurs from automatic corpus checks. The best way to help
the rule score better is to help with masscheck.
Looking at
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20140416-r1587834-n&rule=RP_MATCHES_RCVD&srcpath=&g=Change
there does appear to
Hi list,
I'm trying to get a content analysis report with *not* rounded
(that is, 3-digit precision) scores, is this even possibile?
I'm aware this is documented
(http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RoundingIssues)
but I was wondering if there's one way around it.
I'm using SA 3.3.2.
Thanks a lot
it's not corrected, that's the point...
On 17.04.14 09:14, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
The scoring occurs from automatic corpus checks. The best way to
help the rule score better is to help with masscheck.
and still SA people tune some scores manually.
Looking at http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/
On 4/17/2014 10:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
it's not corrected, that's the point...
On 17.04.14 09:14, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
The scoring occurs from automatic corpus checks. The best way to
help the rule score better is to help with masscheck.
and still SA people tune some scores
On 4/17/2014 9:14 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> it's not corrected, that's the point...
>>
> The scoring occurs from automatic corpus checks. The best way to help
> the rule score better is to help with masscheck.
>
It's not really a good indicator of spam/ham here either. A moderate
amount
Thomas Harold skrev den 2014-04-17 19:01:
(Hopefully next month I can help out with the mass-check.)
should it not be like
meta RP_UNLISTED_HAM (!RP_MATCHES_RCVD)
if it should score as spam ?
if just scores are changed, then its another problem imho
