Re: what happened to DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 ??
Anne wrote: > Hi, > > DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 was taken out since 3.2.x. Why?? > What happens with spam between 48 and 96 hours in the past? Looks like it was dropped due to its horribly poor performance. I can't confirm why it was dropped, but I can point to strong evidence the rule was worthless. In the 3.1.x set0 mass-checks it had a S/O of 0.649, which isn't significantly different from the whole set's S/O of 0.700. In essence, the rule seemed to match spam and nospam with more-or-less equal probability. To the extent it differed from the distribution of the test data, it favored matching nonspam. (ie: the S/O of the rule is less than the S/O of the test data) Sidenote: S/O is the Spam/overall hit ratio. If you multiply by 100, you've got what percentage of the email the rule matched was actually spam.
RE: what happened to DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 ??
-Original Message-
From: Anne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:21 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: what happened to DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 ??
Hi,
DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 was taken out since 3.2.x. Why??
What happens with spam between 48 and 96 hours in the past?
thanks.
Anne
Looks like it got lost, or was decided its not efficient. (it only added
at most a half a point)
If you want to add it back in, use this in local.cf
header DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 eval:check_for_shifted_date('-96',
'-48')
describe DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 Date: is 48 to 96 hours before Received:
date
score DATE_IN_PAST 0.383 0.501 0.400 0.379
_
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(tm).
For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com
_
what happened to DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 ??
Hi, DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 was taken out since 3.2.x. Why?? What happens with spam between 48 and 96 hours in the past? thanks. Anne
