Hello there, Well if you feel uncomfortable with running mass-check and send data (not the email themselves, just the rules they hit, as Darxus is pointing out), you may want to override the score for those rules in your local.cf.
You may even write you own rules to compensate those false positives. If you can't contribute to SA by giving feedback via the mass-check, then do what you need to do on your side. Everybody here will be glad to help ;) Alex, from prypiat. Yes, I recycle. On 12-11-07 11:02 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > 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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
