> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 1:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Hackathon summary > > > Hello Duncan, All, > > Saturday, July 23, 2005, 8:36:58 PM, you wrote: > > DF> * We discussed at length the ideas for the new rules > project, and we > DF> came up with some ideas, which we're trying to track > DF> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RulesProjectPlan > (Please give us > DF> your feedback) > > Question -- at the bottom of that page, we have: > > Repository Organization > > * rules/core/ = standard rules directory > > * rules/sandbox/<username>/ = per-user sandboxes > > * rules/extra/<directory>/ = extra rule sets not in core > > I understand the first two. What is the intent of the third. Would > that be a collection of non-Apache/CLA rule sets submitted by users, > for users? Or would this be a collection of Apache/CLA rule sets > which don't qualify for rules/core for some reason (ie: > language-specific, too many ham hits, not enough spam hits, etc)? Or > some other collection? Or a combination of these? > > Bob Menschel
I just got back from the woods of Maine, so forgive me if I've missed something in this thread. Seeing this breakdown of dirs, gave me an idea. Why not set the "agresiveness" of SA for updates? Like how SARE has ruleset00,cf, ruleset01.cf, ect... Each one getting slightly more FP rates. Rulesets with 00 in them get about zero FP rates, then it slides down slowly. (I don't think SARE uses ANY rules below a S/O of 90.) Users could set some config like supdate=(1-4), 4 being the most aggresive. With the knowledge that more aggresive *could* possibly cause more FPs. Its been working great for SARE, might as well include something like it in SA. --Chris
