Hmm, I just ran a test run with the so-far-accumulated new nonspam corpus and the spam corpus, and PORN_3 comes out with a negative score. So clearly the rule needs work.
C On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 10:48, James Golovich wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, dman wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:12:23AM -0600, Shane Williams wrote: > > | I was looking at the porn expressions and scoring, and thought of an > > | idea to shoot by everybody. > > | > > | If I'm reading the PORN_3 rule correctly, > > > > I had set all the PORN_* rules to 10.0 in my config. I kept getting a > > significant number of normal tech/geek messages triggering the PORN_3 > > test, and a few triggered PORN_8 yesterday. I haven't gone through > > the rule itself, but I cut the score down on those 2 tests. I second > > the motion that the rule needs some improvement :-). > > > > I don't remember which PORN_* score it was hitting, but I get a lot of > mail that has ip addresses x'd out. So it would hit on xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx > and mark it as spam. Maybe the xxx stuff should get moved to a unique xxx > rule > > James > > > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk > > _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
