http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3785
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-16 16:46 ------- (In reply to comment #1) That wouldn't quite get where I was hoping to go, because the real problem is with low scores for high BAYES_* values. I haven't looked at the BAYES_* scores in 3.1.0 yet, but in 3.0.x I frequently get spams that hit BAYES_99 but pass through because they hit nothing else. Switching rulesets only when Bayes can't make up its mind would not address that problem; rather, I'm trying to discover rules that have a different (better) S/O ratio when tested only on "likely" spam (as opposed to when tested on all messages in the input set). Consider, for example, a rule that looks for "remove me" phrases or URLs. If the entire input set contains mailing list messages, the S/O of such a rule may be pretty poor. But if you look only at the subset that is already deemed spammy by Bayesian analysis, mailing list messages might already have been filtered out, and having a remove-me phrase could become more significant. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
