On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:51:45 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 03.03.2016 um 17:54 schrieb RW: > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:18:36 +0100 > > Reindl Harald wrote: > > > >> it would at best end in the rule get such a low score that it is > >> the same as disable it entirely - so the only correct thing to do > >> is stop the foolish deep-header parsing > >> > >> why? > >> > >> because *then* it would no longer hit any relevant amount of ham > >> and QA corpus over time could score it higher in a safe way > > > > If that were supported by the corpus it would already have > > happened > > how do you suppose the corpus to replace ones own thinking about the > *conditions* rules hit?
I've no idea what the sentence means. My point was that for the last month the rules have been constructed such that the optimization could have scored only the last-external rule if that were the optimum solution.
