On 11/07, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Sorry, I was a little rude. But saying that she shouldn't put her job > title anywhere in an email, ever, is ridiculous.
Certainly. > The inputs (spam, ham) > to the classifier are assumed god-given; and the classification needs to > reflect the data, not the other way around. If "the classifier" is spamassassin, and "The inputs" are the spam and ham data provided via masscheck, then... the scores provided via sa-update *do* reflect the data. So I'm not sure what you mean. The ideal rule scores are chosen to cause one false positive (ham flagged as spam) in every 2,500 hams, while maximizing the number of spams correctly flagged as spams. With so few hams hitting this rule in the masscheck corpora, we're way below that threshold based on the data we have. > This is my fault, of course, but I'm not allowed to mass-check this > stuff. It's ongoing legal correspondence. Er, what? You're not allowed to provide a list of which rules hit each of your emails? Or you're not allowed to run a program on your emails that isn't spamassassin? Or did I just not put "This does not require sending us your email" in bold enough times on the masscheck page? -- "It's never too late to panic." http://www.ChaosReigns.com
