I beleive the scoring values are lineair and defined in the config files: something like this BAYES_99 scores 3.5 DCC_CHECK scores 2.5 SPF_FAIL scores 1.1 etc. So it's always given the right score, unless the authors don't know how to add these values together. -Sietse
________________________________ From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 26-Jul-06 12:37 To: Sietse van Zanen Cc: SpamAssassin Users Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage I can see how plugins and add-on rules all affect it, but certainly they have some sort of base comparison that lets them know when they've gotten the right score values for the base rules, right? On Jul 26, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Sietse van Zanen wrote: > I think such a thing would be very difficult. Because scoring is > mostly dependant on your personal configuration of SA. The more > plugins you use, the higher the score will be. And that is independant > of spam probability. > > You might be able to compare bayes probabilities with SA scores, but > automating it would be very, very difficult. > > -Sietse > > ________________________________ > > From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wed 26-Jul-06 12:13 > To: SpamAssassin Users > Subject: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage > > > > > Does anyone have a scale that compares the SA score to a "percent > likelihood that the message is spam"? > > > Something like "a score of 5 is a 75% chance than the message is spam". > But I don't want it just for a score of 5. What I'd like is for > scores of 1-10. And I'd also like to see it for percentage likelihoods > of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, and 99 > (and maybe 100, but I expect that wont be meaningful) (so, I can say > "an 80% likelihood happens at a score of 6" or something). > > It seems as though something like this must be done to keep the right > amount of the base spam/ham corpus used with the GA within expected > values. But I haven't ever seen an actual rating along these lines. > Hopefully it's not in a completely obvious place that I've > overlooked... > > >
