Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting System

[Todd Ryan]

I did exactly this when we added SPAMCHK as a test last year.  I believe they recommended this range because spamchk would add a lot of small weights and a 1-10 scale is too narrow.  It also allows us to create filters with words that are more common in non-spam, but more likely to be spam in higher frequency.  That is, a dozen or so words that have a weight of 2 or 3 out of 100 would give me the desired final weight.  But the best I could do on a 1-10 scale is give each 1 point which would put me over my hold weight pretty quick. --Todd. Dan Geiser wrote: Hello, All, Over the year or so that I've been reading the discussions on this list it seems I've read quite a bit about people scaling their weights up, i.e. instead of having a HOLD weight of 10, you might have a HOLD weight of 100 and then you adjust the corresponding test weights accordingly.  Assuming that what I've read is correct, for those who uses this scaled up system...   What sort of benefit is is that you feel that you receive from doing this?  Does it allow a more granular tuning of your weighting system?  Are there any other benefits I'm not thinking of?  Does having a hold weight of 100, for example, help you think more clearly about each test being a percentage of the overall HOLD weight?   I'm doing a major overhaul of Declude JunkMail configuration and I figured if a scaled up weight system is the best way to do things then I might want to implement that now.   Thanks In Advance For Your Comments!   Dan Geiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]