Matt Kettler wrote:
Yes it does.. the text of the subject line will match against any body rule. SA
pre-pends this so we don't have to have a massive duplication of rules to cover
both body and subject.
---
Ah. Didn't know that. Different tools, different lingo for
message, message header, message body.
"Want a Bigger MBP?" A '25_replace' rule is present for "fuzzy"
MBP's, but doesn't seem to catch unfuzzy ones.
So I guess questions might be:
1) should 'fuzzy' rules match non-fuzzy targets as well
as fuzzy ones?
IMHO, no. I think there should be two rules with separate scores. In the above
example the scores would be pretty much the same.
---
I agree on keeping the rules separate, just didn't know fuzzy
Subj was included in body.
However consider the word viagra, an obfuscation is a clear sign of spam.
Un-obfuscated is a less strong sign of spam in this case, because it could be a
joke or a conversation with a medical discussion of some form.
---
Agreed.
Should it, or
rather, do people feel this is a good idea?
I don't feel that would be a good idea. Bear in mind this would also make a
"good" message (ie: one at -1.0) be "more good". It just doesn't make sense to
me to have something which merely acts as a "score amplifier" instead of a score
adjustment.
---
I realized it would increase "goodness" as well, but I guess I didn't
see that as much of an issue of the multiplier was applied last.
Performing any kind of GA to establish a reasonable multiplier value for these
would be a logistical nightmare.
---
:-) True, but that doesn't mean SA couldn't "support" a post
multiplier! :-) I can see it's use would be somewhat limited though, as I'm
not sure under what other conditions one would want such a scaling, so its loss
in "one" circumstance seems minor. Sometimes I get overfocused on the problem,
and blow up its severity, in my mind. Uh, maybe I can blame it on original
spam's intent on increasing small problems? ;^?
Feedback is good! :-)
Tnx,
Linda
