On 11/07/2012 10:36 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > 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. >
I wrote that before I saw your clarification, sorry again for coming off as a jerk. Ignore it. >> 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? > This is a client of ours (a law firm) and not the company that I work for. *I* know there's probably nothing sensitive in there, but just to cover my ass I'd need to get permission to send the results off-site. >From their perspective, it's just simpler to say no: it's not worth the time or effort to even think about if there's a minute chance of it coming back to bite them legally.
