Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > Justin Mason wrote: > > Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > >> Justin Mason wrote: > >>> Also, are you using the perceptron? don't ;) the GA produces better > >>> results with current spam and rules, I've found. That would explain > >>> the poor results on set0, I'd guess. > >> I'm using the GA. The ~52% hit rate is with the scores you generated > >> two months ago (with the GA). The ~94% hit rate is with the new rules > >> (and new scores) along with the old rules and scores. > > > > wow, that's pretty bad... it might be worth investigating this to make > > sure it's not biased data in the nightly logs. mind you, set 0 is > > always pretty bad nowadays.... > > It could be the nightly logs. I'm actually ignoring logs from cthielen > as it looks like there's a lot of spam in his ham logs.
I've noticed that, too. :( > spam could have just changed that much too. DOS_STOCK_CDYV_GENERIC hits > on something like 4.1% of spam (27% of spam that would normally score > under 5). It got assigned a score of ~4 so that one rule alone could be > making quite a difference. possibly, I guess.... --j.
