LuKreme wrote:
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
not give negative scores to databases that don't behave reasonably.
This has been brought up on the list in the past (there was a long
thread on it last February). The best suggestion I saw in that thread was
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI -1.0
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI -0.5
score HABEAS_CHECKED 0
The other suggestion that seemed reasonable was setting all scores to
0. Some people suggested setting the scores to positive numbers. Based
on my own mail, a small positive score for Habeas is reasonable:
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI 0.5
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 1.0
score HABEAS_CHECKED 0
It's about 90% Spam for my own mailspool. It used to be used a lot more,
at least in my mail. A lot of commercial or semi-commercial
mailing-lists that I was on tried it out back around 2003-2005, iirc.
Since then, all have stopped using it. The last one to remove them was
the TidBITS mailing list which dropped them on 1-Jan-2007. Certainly
having the very low scores (are they still defaulting to -4.5 and -8.0?)
seems like a spectacularly bad idea.
If you want the real history of Habeas in a nutshell, the company went
to hell when Anne Mitchell left (the same Anne Mitchell who was part of
MAPS back in the day). She's now at the Institute for Spam and Internet
Public Policy <http://www.isipp.com/about.php>. What habeas became
after she left was something quite different from what it had been under
her stewardship.
I zeroed the scores for all of these rules about a year ago. They were
only hitting on SPAM emails and pushing them into the FN range.
--
Anthony Peacock
CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
WWW: http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
Study Health Informatics - Modular Postgraduate Degree
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/study-health-informatics/
