On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Daniel Pittman wrote: > On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > On 5 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote: > > [...] > > >> Matt, take a look at bugzilla #62 -- there is more discussion of > >> exactly this there. If you re-order the rules, then the only problem > >> with short-circuit scoring is razor submission. If "-L" is used > >> though, this is irrelevant, you can just exit when the threshold is > >> exceeded. It would probably be good to indicate that score evaluation > >> was short-circuited in some header or other (probably just tack on > >> the X-Spam-Status) so people don't get confused. Also, you'll want to > >> make sure none of the "make test" stuff needs adjusting for the new > >> scores some of the mails will get. > > > > OK, all implemented and checked in (along with the other stuff (conf > > ||=, and subject in body). Please test CVS anyone who's interested in > > this. > > I am somewhat dubious about the effects of the subject-in-body change.
Me too - I even said so in an earlier mail. > It would be really good if someone (Craig ;) were to run SpamAssassin > over the corpus with and without it being make, then compare the > results. So let's let Craig re-run the corpus check before we start speculating. Personally I think it's ultimately a good thing, and we can always start adjusting scores that cause wild variations. -- Matt. <:->get a SMart net</:-> ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
