On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Gary Funck wrote: > Alternatively, offer a max count and pattern. The actual count would be > expressed as a percentage of the maximum, and this would be multiplied > by the score......
Actually, this is what I said we did *not* want when I said a 'straight multiplier' would be a bad idea. The whole point is that low counts of a particular string need to score ZERO. So perhaps a *minimum* count, and a multiplier that *starts* at that count, would work. But I think having specific scores for a range of counts is more flexible. To get the effect of a multiplier, all you would do is specify (presuming a 'minimum' count of 5 matches not counted): score RULENAME (6:0.2,8:0.4,10:0.6,12:0.8,14:1.0) Of course, specifying it this way, also allows non-linear scoring. So we could make the score for 14 matches much higher, assuming that amny obfuscations clearly only happens in spam..... - Charles ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
