*craig struts around the room saying nahnananana told you so* Just kidding. But really, I think it's correct that these scores are better. I don't know if they're 20-30% better, but I'd say at least 10%.
C Rick Macdougall wrote: > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:57:54 -0500 > From: Rick Macdougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Spamassassin-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: GA coming up with wacky scores? was Re: [SAtalk] Announcing > 2.1 release > > Hi, > > Just my 2 cents.... > > I receive on the order of 500 emails per day. I get aliased on support, dns, > webmaster and a few others, as well as having my email address archived for > all spammers to harvest since 1994. Plus various mailing lists etc... > > Approx 100 of those a day are spam, some days more than others. I installed > the latest version this morning and I have had a 100% hit rate on Spam and a > 100% no hit rate on non-spam (including some that got marked as spam in the > old version, ie mypoints.com, don't ask it's a wife thing). > > I'd say the new rules are at least 10 or 20 percent better than the old > rules for the e-mail I get, without any false positives today or any leakage > into my readable inbox. > > Regards, > > Rick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Duncan Findlay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Spamassassin-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:46 PM > Subject: Re: GA coming up with wacky scores? was Re: [SAtalk] Announcing 2.1 > release > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:28:07PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote: > > Duncan Findlay wrote: > > > > > Ummm... I'd be heavily inclined to set these spam scores to 0.01. It's > not > > > that I don't trust the GA, it's just that if these are the outputs, they > > > aren't needed in the first place. > > > > That's not necessarily the case. They might be needed to reduce false > > positives. As I posted a couple messages ago, I think I'll do some amount > of > > investigation of the tests which are hit by remaining false positives and > false > > negatives to see which rules are affecting those messages and get a little > more > > information about what's going on. For the curious, I've attached the > frequency > > file that the GA used as part of the process of determining these scores. > The > > format of the file is pretty straightforward. > > > > C > > Questional tests: > > score GAPPY_TEXT -3.667 > spam: 261. nonspam: 112. > > score PORN_8 -5.452 > spam: 3. nonspam: 22. > > score TRACKER_ID -4.899 > spam: 9. nonspam: 9 > > > Ridiculous scores: > > score 25FREEMEGS_URL -4.606 > spam: 6. nonspam: 0. > > score CYBER_FIRE_POWER -4.020 > spam: 10. nonspam: 0. > > score EXCUSE_5 13.447 > spam: 10. nonspam: 0. > > score MONSTERHUT -8.280 > spam: 40. nonspam: 0. > > score ONCE_IN_LIFETIME -4.604 > spam: 83. nonspam: 5. > > > > -- > Duncan Findlay > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
