http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-31 15:11 ------- I personally would prefer to avoid fixing any Bayes scores so they couldn't float, but I feel equally strongly that BAYES_99 should score higher than the others. BAYES_00 is problematic when a Bayes database gets poisoned, but BAYES_99 generally doesn't have that problem. Option 1: Allow all Bayes scores to float, but add code which forces BAYES_99 to be at least 10% higher than the max score of all other Bayes scores (at least BAYES_95). Option 2: Allow all Bayes scores to float, but give BAYES_99 a floor of either 3.5 or 4.0 -- it can float higher if the Perceptron feels it should, but no lower. In SARE we sometimes run into a family of rules like Bayes, something like __RULE_1 -- spam sign # 1 __RULE_2 -- spam sign # 2 __RULE_3 -- spam sign # 3 meta RULE_1 -- rule 1 but not 2 or 3 meta RULE_2 -- rule 2 but not 1 or 3 meta RULE_3 -- rule 3 but not 1 or 2 meta RULE_4 -- rules 1 and 2 but not 3 meta RULE_5 -- rules 1 and 3 but not 2 meta RULE_6 -- rules 2 and 3 but not 1 meta RULE_7 -- rules 1, 2, and 3 The meta rules 1-3 are scored based on their solo hits (the hits of their __feeder rules), using our standard SARE algorithms. Assuming that meta rules 4-6 hit fewer ham than 1-3, we score them higher than 1-3, even if their total spam hits are lower (because of the increased requirements). Likewise, meta rule 7 will be scored highest of this family, because it's "safest" of the seven rules. Would it be worth while opening a new bugz entry for a 3.2 enhancement to implement some kind of "this rule scores better than that rule if its S/O is at least as good" linkage? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
