Daniel Quinlan wrote: DQ> Michael Moncur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DQ> DQ> > And a few slightly questionable scores: DQ> > DQ> > - This was 0.87 before. Less and less useful? DQ> > score FROM_AND_TO_SAME -2.071 DQ> DQ> I think this one should go. It's a common way to send email to a DQ> large list of people without subjecting them all to the address list.
I think we should be able to use this to help us deal with the in-ones-own-awl problem. Will need some adjustment though. I think if we deal with that from=to=self issue, then we can reset this score to +2 or so probably. DQ> > - Not as weird as all that, apparently DQ> > score MSGID_CHARS_WEIRD -2.178 DQ> DQ> This is is on my list of rules to remove from both trees. I separated DQ> these characters from the MSGID_CHARS_SPAM rule because I wasn't as DQ> sure about them and indeed, they aren't spammy enough. It appears to be only [ and ] which are bad in this rule. AFAICT anyway. DQ> > - Lots of missing dates in non-spam? DQ> > score DATE_MISSING -2.140 DQ> DQ> This just doesn't happen often enough, I think. In 7846 messages (23% DQ> spam), I have zero occurances. I think it's a screwy thing happening in my mail archive. The other occurrences of this in nonspam are in Matt Cline's and rodbegbie's archives. Could you guys take a look and see what messages are triggering this for you? DQ> > Just for the record, here's the usual list of rules that ended up with DQ> > slightly negative scores. They aren't really good rules for catching DQ> > nonspam, so I think the rules are likely either defective or obsolete. DQ> DQ> Some of these were intended to be negative. Some also are only DQ> slightly negative so I would not delete them from the next pass. See DQ> if future improvements or GA runs (with other bad rules removed) can DQ> recover them. DQ> DQ> > score LINES_OF_YELLING -0.036 DQ> DQ> I think this rule needs to be partitioned to be similar to the DQ> UPPERCASE rules. The current rules overlap so the GA-evolved scores DQ> are hard to interpret. Yes, I think this probable does need reworking. DQ> > score X_AUTH_WARNING -0.703 DQ> DQ> I think this one is intended to be negative, although I didn't write DQ> it. This happens when Unix users send mail with "mail" or "mailx" DQ> locally. Yes, I think it's supposed to be -ve too, I also don't know the origin of the rule. DQ> > score X_NOT_PRESENT -1.920 DQ> DQ> This one is on my hitlist as well. Didn't work out very well. But it actually turns out to be great at clawing back false positives. I think we should leave it in with the low score. C _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=osdntextlink _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
