On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 15:37, Karsten Bräckelmann <guent...@rudersport.de> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 19:31 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote: >> It appears to me that the HABEAS rules are hitting only a very tiny fraction >> of >> mail, many of the nightly mass-checks don't have a hit at all (or is it that >> those >> checks don't contain any network checks?). The aggregated view shows no hits >> at all >> for these rules. > > Network tests are done once a week, not daily. > >> I'm not sure if I'm reading the ruleqa correctly, although I read it's help. >> 1. I'm wondering why many rules show a score of 0.0 > > These appear to be network tests. > >> 2. do I understand it correctly that a nightly check contains only the spam >> received over the last 24 hours? > > No. The nightly mass-checks contain the full corpora. > >> 3. I don't see any explanation for s/o and rank. (Rank seems to be some sort >> of >> ranking according to the hit rate, but I find it hardly understandable that >> a rule >> that hits a lot of messages, like URIBL_SURBL, scores 1.0 as rank and a rule >> that >> hits almost no messages still scores at half of that. s/o seems to show the >> ham/spam ratio cleanliness?) > > Correct, S/O is the Spam / Overall ratio. The higher that ratio, the > better the rule and the lower the ham hits (in percent, not absolute > numbers).
it's also worth noting that rules intending to hit ham need to have a very _low_ S/O ratio -- as near to 0.0 as possible. --j.
