Yes, Declude already has TWO weights associated with SNFIPREP (one for
positive, one for negative). 

 

Just as you said, but multiplying with the positive or negative weight, as
need be, one would get two linear slopes from the center point.

 

On top of that, Dave has a "basepoint" option that can shift the center
point left or right.

 

So - it's 99% there. It just needs to "prorate" the +/- weights (=
multiplying) rather than use them absolute values.

 

From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:14 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight
Scheme

 

On 5/5/2010 1:30 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote: 

Hi Dave,

 

Hm - yes,I think if you added 21 lines (from -10 to 0 and to +10) to the
config file, you would have could cover the reputation range from -1 to +1
in 0.1 step increments.

 

Not elegant - but would have the same effect as multiplying the reputation
range with the defined max weight.


I hate to muddy the waters further -- but we solved this problem once when
developing the envelope management bit of GBUdb.
It might be complicated to explain, but suppose you define the slope at a
given point for each line you specify and then have the resulting weight be
a linear transform (as was discussed before).

Then you would need only two entries by default...
One that describes full-scale + and another that defines full scale -.
If you find the need to alter the slope then you can add additional points
in between.
The math works by drawing a straight line from 0 to the next defined point,
and from that point to the extreme, and so on.

Personally I think it is overkill -- but if you're going to talk about
making many many lines for this then the multi-point curve interpolation is
the way to go.

In practice the best way _seems_ to be to provide only two slopes -- one
positive going, one negative going -- and to establish a weight based on
those slopes. Theoretically that could be defined on a single Declude test
definition line.

Is there some constraint that I don't know about causing folks to consider
more complexity?

Hope this is helpful,

_M





-- 
President
MicroNeil Research Corporation
www.microneil.com


---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com. 



---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail".  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

Reply via email to