-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
John Gardiner Myers writes: > DATE_IN_FUTURE_48_96 has an S/O of 1.0, yet is disabled. Others have > S/O values that are just barely under the current threshold. > > The results are nonsensical. That highly suggests there is something > wrong with the criteria. I wouldn't say it's nonsensical -- it's what we agreed on. The criteria include a minimum number of hits in the corpus; it's currently set to require 0.1% of spam hit. If you look at the score-map data: http://buildbot.spamassassin.org/ruleqa?daterev=20060106-r358194-n&rule=DATE_IN_FUTURE_48_96&s_detail=1 scoremap spam: 3 26.67% 8 ********** scoremap spam: 4 16.67% 5 ****** scoremap spam: 5 10.00% 3 **** scoremap spam: 6 10.00% 3 **** scoremap spam: 7 6.67% 2 ** scoremap spam: 8 6.67% 2 ** scoremap spam: 11 3.33% 1 * scoremap spam: 18 10.00% 3 **** scoremap spam: 19 3.33% 1 * scoremap spam: 20 3.33% 1 * scoremap spam: 26 3.33% 1 * the 3rd column is the number of messages hit. in other words, in a 138165-spam corpus, it's hit about 20 mails in total. At some point, you have to say "this rule doesn't hit enough mail to be worthwhile"; we've chosen 0.1% for that cut-off. This rule is hitting 0.02% of spam. anyway, I've just checked in a change that'll allow hit-rates all the way down to 0.02%. why not. ;) - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFDvt7jMJF5cimLx9ARAkGyAJ9YlwmxfE2VU2b4lw+3d5/mR8/DtACgnVTn LjYOnQBaKJLF1xPp/HaH9kI= =3/ll -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
