On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:41:30 +0200 Stevan Bajić <[email protected]> wrote:
[...] > Classification group is a mess. I need to find time to fix that. > I have now changed the code that does group parsing and assigning. Can I send you a patch to try out? [...] > It is broken. I mean the whole group support is not consistent. > I never played with classification groups. But now reading the code I really ask my self if that classification group support has ever worked the proper way? If I overlook all the other obvious issues and only concentrate on the ussage of global groups/classification networks then I see that the code only is made to switch from innocent to spam. If using global group then a spam message gets automatically switched to be innocent and then later gets checked against global user. The source code and README writes about "classification network" but I really don't see here any big magic or anything that would deserve the name "network". First result of a member from a global/classification group is enough to switch the class state. I would at least expect the code to ask a bunch of members (if they are more members) and then doing the class switch based on the combined result. But not just first member and then use that result. -- Kind Regards from Switzerland, Stevan Bajić ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Dspam-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspam-user
