On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:33, RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:04:36 +0100 > Justin Mason <j...@jmason.org> wrote: > >> that's pretty much it. low FPs and a useful number of hits (ie. over >> 1% iirc). > > Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean that the rule is useful. > It's easy to create rules that match the above criteria, but most of > them never make a difference as they only fire on spam that's already > caught with a high score. It's much harder to create new rules that > really make a difference - I've found that those that do are mostly > specific to my own mail. > > I'm not really convinced that a *lot* of new rules are really needed, > particularly when you consider that the main complaint against SA is > the number cpu cycles it consumes.
yes. we have ways to measure and mitigate this -- once we have the rules in SVN. --j.
