The wiki page has rules to handle v1agr.. It also has rules for generic viagra which really do a good job for us. http://www.exit0.us
Frederic Tarasevicius Internet Information Services, Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jess Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "SpamAssassin List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] No rule for the word "V1AGRA"? > Matt Kettler: > > > Yes, the intention is that SA should work out of the box.. and it does. > > However, it's tuned with certain assumptions about acceptable false positve > > and false negative rates. One of the primary assumptions is that false > > positives are 100 times worse than false negatives. SA has a slightly "soft > > hand" in scoring as a result. If your philosophy differs, lower the > > threshold, or tweak scores as you see fit. > > > > As for what the score of bayes_90 should be, opinions are fine, but before > > you go wading in saying what the scores should be, you should realize how > > those scores come about. Realize that the rule scores are NOT hand > > assigned. They are tested and evolved against a real-world corpus of email. > > Unless you've got some solid facts to back yourself up, I'm sorry, but I'm > > going to have to side with the computerized testing and analysis of the > > rules against over 140,000 emails as being better than your gut feelings. > > > > It's also fundamentally flawed to look only at one rule in the ruleset and > > try to figure out what it's score should be. The results of processing an > > email is an interaction between all the rules in the ruleset. Mails that > > trigger one rule, often trigger others at the same time. To see what the > > score should be, you need to study all the combinations of hits, not just > > the hits of one single rule at a time. If you want a well balanced score > > set, changing the score of one rule shifts the scores for almost every rule > > in the entire ruleset by the time your done correcting all the false > > positive and negative cases created by that change. > > > > The complexity of these patterns is also why SA has it's scores assigned by > > a GA, not by some hand mechanism. (it's output is however re-tested and > > human inspected). > > > > None of this is to say that the SA rule scores are infallible, but you do > > need to consider that this isn't a simple system, it's one with an > > extraordinary amount of complexity and inter-relationships. You need to > > think about the larger picture of the rules as a set in order to make > > reasonable judgements about scores. > > Thank you for putting this so clearly and succinctly. It seems > to me a perfect explanation for non-experts of the SA design > philosophy. If it's not already in the docs, it should be. > > -- > [] Change can't be prevented, only guided. > [] -- David Brin > -- > * Copyright 2003 Jess Anderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > * Web site: www.jessanderson.org > * Writings on music: www.madisonmusicreview.org > * Window Maker themes: www.jessanderson.org/wmthemes > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
