https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5817
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-23 19:49 -------
(In reply to comment #32)
> Zero ham hits is nice, but with S/O ratios like those two rules have, its
> nothing to be particularly concerned about. Either of those rules look good
> to
> me.
Thanks for that comment, Loren -- this pretty much is what I have been wondering
about myself (see comment 22). Is a single FP worth chasing? How does it affect
the score? Of course, I like my proposed rules to be sharp and effective. And of
course, I want it to score as much as possible by default. ;)
> Which one has the simpler regex? Use that one.
That would be either variant A or B (which are equivalent). And that's actually
exactly what *I* do already. Now I want SA to use it...
And here we reached the point, where I need your opinion. Which one to use?
I know about my spam, and I monitor it for any FP. But getting the rule upstream
will affect users and admins all over the world. The latter is new to me, and I
can't push new rules anyway -- I rely upon your judgement, which one to pick.
There are two and a half options IMHO:
(a) Go with either variant A or B as is. The most simple RE. There's one FP in
the current mass-check corpus, and a second FP previously recorded by Chris.
A trivial adjustment is, to modify these to exclude all private IP rather
than localhost only, as per my original plugin. Would get rid of the current
single FP. Would not do that for the expired FP by Chris. Needs another
round of testing to gather results.
(b) Go with variant C, which adds an additional, not-so-trivial constraint.
Rewriting this into a single RE pending, needs testing.
Neither of these affects the hits on ham and spam significantly. Opinions? Your
call. I'd be most happy to provide whatever variant you prefer or would like to
see results for.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
