John Hardin wrote: > > >> I wanted to ask, if someone knows how to make hit-frequencies and also >> mass-check, to take into account the increased values of rules. >> For examlpe, I have "score bayes_99 (2)" in 50_scores.cf, and I want >> ./hit-frequencies, and also ./mass-check to deal with this correctly. > > To what end? The score doesn't determine whether or not the rule hits on a > given message. How are the scores on the rules causing hit-frequencies and > mass-check to "incorrectly" deal with things? What do you think should > happen instead? Please describe what you perceive to be the problem in a > little more detail... > > Is it just the display of the rule's score in the output, and this is > purely a cosmetic issue? >
Hi, thanks for response. So, here is the situation. I want to create statistics for the rule hits in my database. I first run mass-check, to create the ham.log and spam.log. I want to create fp-fn statistic, using ./fp-fn-statistics, but I think, that these statistics are messed up, if there are not assigned the increased score values (there are not so many spam hits, as there should be). As the next step is generating of new scores (only for my three new rules, the others have "tflags userconf", to not change the scores of these). So if there are hits, but the corect scores are not assigned (the increased values), then perceptron won't generate proper scores. So that's the problem. Actually for set1, set2 and set3, there won't be proper fp-fn statistics generated, and because I don't change other rule scores, the fp-fn statistics, that the perceptron generates (according to the rule scores) won't be correct (the net and bayes rules haven't their scores from real use assigned, because they are "increased" in our score files). -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/hit-frequencies-and-rules-with-increased--score-tp31575959p31583112.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
