On Wed, 1 May 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote: > > > I find this quite interesting, beucase it gives and example of how > > ineffective some of the rules have become. (NIGERIAN_SCAM, for example) > > There are a couple of things to note about this analysis: > > (1) It doesn't account for duplication. If you got the same spam 5000 > times, whatever rules it triggered will show up proportionately in the > counts. This doesn't accurately reflect the effectiveness of the rule in > *identifying* the spam -- unless you've already de-duped your archive? > > (2) It doesn't account for rules that appear in combination. CLICK_BELOW > doesn't score anywhere near 5 all by itself; it's only as effective as the > other rules that matched with it. > > So about all you could say from just this analysis is that rules that were > never hit could possibly be deleted. >
I wondered why I hadn't seen Dan's post so I looked in my SPAM folder and there it was. SA gave it 23.6 Hits :-) -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Shorewall - iptables made easy AIM: tmeastep \ http://www.shorewall.net ICQ: #60745924 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
