All y'all should read bugzilla #47 C
Rob McMillin wrote: > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:12:32 -0800 > From: Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] idea: Rules about other rules > > Matthew Cline wrote: > > >I got the idea of creating rules that would be triggered depending upon what > >other rules had already been triggered, so that you could combine different > >tests for greater accuracy. For instance, the rule US_DOLLARS is described > >as a "Nigerian scam key phrase", but it's separate from the NIGERIAN_SCAM > >rules; the different rules simply add up if both of them are present. But if > >there a rule like: > > > > meta NIGERIAN_META (NIGERIAN_SCAM || NIGERIAN_SCAM_2) && US_DOLLARS > > > >So then you could shift points from the base rules to the meta rule, thus > >hopefully reducing false positives. > > > This strikes me as a poor locution. Wouldn't you want something like > > meta NIGERIAN_META (Body =~ /<nigerian scam regexp>/ || Body =~ > /<nigerian scam 2 regexp) && Body =~ /<us_dollars>/) > > I mean, it seems more useful to be able to slide together tests > arbitrarily rather than by name, and for this reason: given the way the > GA seems to like to inexplicably push scores to zero, it's hard to spot > immediately if a multipoint test will pass or fail because some > component is zero, whereas the above would never have that problem. But > I can see how something like this would be useful as a "we're even more > sure this is spam" perspective. > > In general, I'm wondering why more Perl eval's aren't being used > directly rather than the current method of parsing fragments. > > _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
