On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:12:37 +0200 mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
> RW wrote: > > On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:14:52 +0200 > > mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote: > > > > The source of your confusion is that you are mixing-up the > > terminology of the overall classification and individual test > > results. Think of this way, in a fingerprint comparison the > > meanings of TP, TN, FP and FN are obvious and intrinsic to the > > test, it would be absurd to switch them around depending on whether > > it's evidence for the defence or prosecution. > > let's take it more easily: Please explain to me what was an FP in this > thread. A test intended for identifying ham was being hit on spam. A hit on a rule is a positive result. When a rule hits something it's intended to identify, it's a "true positive". When a rule hits something it's not intended to identify, it's a "false positive", and so on. The same terminology can be used for SpamAssassin's overall spam classification, but that's a different matter. If you talk about a rule hit being an FN, because it might contribute to a classification FN then you are using the terminology like a cargo-cultist.
