On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:57 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 8/11/2010 11:46 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 10:59 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > > I was looking through some of the spam rules, and I noticed that the
> > > JM_SOUGHT_FRAUD rules are included in the main SA updates channel for SA
> > > 3.3.1, but the scores are all 0. Is there a reason for this?
> >
> > Yes, an explicit request by Justin to zero them out, specifically aiming
> > at the rescore runs to prevent biasing the scores too much, AFAIK.
> >
> > The Sought Fraud rules are expected to be enabled locally -- that is,
> > assign them a proper score in the site config cf files.
> >
> >
> > In other words: To my knowledge and experience, they are rather safe to
> > use. They have *not* been zeroed out due to bad performance.
>
> I thought I had enabled them by using the "sought.rules.yerp.org"
> sa-update channel, but apparently not, since that gets overridden by the
> copy in the main updates channel.
Uhm, yeah -- IIRC that's alphabetical order, and stock *u*pdates gets
parsed after *s*ought channel.
> Are the rules in the main updates channel being updated as often as the
> ones in the sought channel? A quick comparison shows that the two sets
> of rules on my system are different. I thought the sought rules were
> highly dynamic, so I'm surprised to see one of them show up in the main
> channel.
I think they are updated frequently, also in 3.3 stock. Details escape
me right now. Justin?
Update frequency of the dedicated sought channel has been changing a few
times in the past. Currently it's "more than once a day" for quite some
time.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
