At Tue Aug 26 13:15:59 2003, 'Carlo Wood' wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:21:46AM +0100, Martin Radford wrote:
> > >From my own collections:
> >
> > with FQDN with hostname only
> > ham: 2331 (85.6%) 391 (14.4%)
> > spam: 1925 (76%) 608 (24%)
> >
> > While I'm not very good with statistics, this rule doesn't look very
> > good for distinguishing ham from spam.
>
> But it does!
> spamassassin deals with statistics, and this rule apparently
> is capable of making it no less than THREE times as likely
> that a mail is spam!
Thinking about it, we need to flip the figures around a bit to get this:
ham spam
with FQDN: 2331 (54.8%) 1925 (45.2%)
hostname only: 391 (39.1%) 608 (60.9%)
So, if a mail has an FQDN after the '@' the chances of it being spam
are 45.2%. If it doesn't, then the chances of it being spam are
60.9%. These are both *far* too close to 0.5 for me to want to pay
attention to it as a rule.
Martin
--
Martin Radford | "Only wimps use tape backup: _real_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | men just upload their important stuff -o)
Registered Linux user #9257 | on ftp and let the rest of the world /\\
- see http://counter.li.org | mirror it ;)" - Linus Torvalds _\_V
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
