I think a lot of work has been done to reduce false positives, and often this may have the effect of increasing false-negatives (eg. badly implemented AWL). I agree that it might have gone a bit far and that more spam does seem to be slipping through. Luckily, it's fairly easy to rectify this by changing a parameter in the GA score evolver, which currently treats false-positives as "20 times worse" in some sense than false-negatives when it's doing its optimization. I'm currently working on getting a non-spam corpus together so I can run the GA in justin's absence -- hopefully that'll get up and ready within the next week or so.
Having said that, I think apart from the issues with AWL, it's not *too* bad. C on 2/1/02 6:16 AM, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So far I have seen the following with v2.01 as compared to v1.5: > 1. 2.01 appears to be better at reducing false positives that v1.5 - this > is good! > 2. 2.01 appears to be worse with false negatives. There is alot more Spam > getting thru. I don't have the ability to run the false negatives thru 1.5 > but I'm betting it would have caught some of them. > > I realize that 2.01 was a significant change from 1.5. Was there a greater > emphasis on reducing false positives? Is what I'm seeing typical for other > SA users out there? > > Thanks, > Ed. _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
