I'll investigate -- it's weird, because both GAs seem to assign low scores to "HUNZA_DIET_BREAD" even though it obviously only appears in the spam corpus, and not in non-spam. In fact my GA which allows -ve scores give it a -ve score! Now having said that, all the HUNZA_DIET_BREAD messages in the corpus end up being identified as spam anyway because of the other rules they trigger, but it's still very strange behavior by the GA.
C On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 14:06, Greg Ward wrote: > On 14 February 2002, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson said: > > I have been seeing alot more Spam get thru (false negatives) in v2.01 than > > with v1.5. I have been comparing the scores of 1.5 with 2.01 to see why. > > Here is an interesting discovery: there are several scores in the > > 50_scores.cf file that are 0.01 in value: > [...] > > Most of these if they existed in 1.5 had significantly higher scores like > > CLICK_BELOW, EXCUSE_*, *SUBJ_REMOVE, etc. Why have they been changed in > > v2.01? Is it a mistake? I believe these scores should be reviewed. If they > > were a little higher most of my false negatives would have been caught. > > I second that suggestion. I have bumped up several of the 0.01 scores > in my ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs file after some fairly obvious spam > leaked through. Would have been nice not to have to do that at all. > > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > 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
