http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5830
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-21 06:53 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> > note the minor changes; renames to include the KB prefix and use of (?:...)
> > instead of (...) for efficiency.
>
> Cool. However, seriously, instead of the custom __KB_OUTLOOK_MUA rule, bug
> 5774
> should be fixed. It's simply adding the optional Office part. It's probably
> just
> fine for testing, though.
now done.
> Also, I kind of fell in love with the name Theo used for the rule.
> KB_RATWARE_MSGID just sounds awesome. :)
sure ;)
> > - wait a day or two and see how they perform in results on
> > http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/
> >
> > - if they're good, do some further discussion about: wiping out remaining
> > false
> > positives (or dangers of same); ways to improve the hitrates slightly; ways
> > to
> > reduce redundant overlap with existing rules; ways to trim down the number
> > of
> > versions of the proposed new rules.
>
> Time to wait a day...
A day or so ;) here are the results:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/today/T_KB_MSGID_OUTLOOK_BROKEN/detail
looks great. no false positives in any corpus, and no significant
overlaps with other rules. Score map has most of its hits between 3 and
6 points. Most of the hits seem fresh. great stuff!
btw, you were asking about the T_ prefix? it's used to force rule scores
to 0.01 for test rules. Once a rule is measured as having "good enough"
results, it's allowed to not be a T_ rule.
anyway, this is now in the trunk ruleset as of r629813.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
