http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 03:22 ---
I'm not too concerned about a few mis-labeled entries. All that will happen
from those is that our numbers will look a bit off. Unless anyone has
objections,
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 03:40 ---
MY check of the set3 results gives:
FNS: (can be moved to spam if you want, or deleted)
/scratch/SA/mails/2005-01.mbox.ham.21322338
FPS: (can be moved to ham
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4396
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 07:47 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Bumping up severity/priority since 3.1.0 really shouldn't be released without
this as SpamCop reporting is broken without it.
+1
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4396
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 09:45 ---
+1 (I wish perl would complain about this stuff)
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 09:46 ---
well, in terms of generating STATISTICS.txt at least, I would prefer to have the
bad entries fixed; those numbers are published. it's pretty trivial to fix up
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 09:57 ---
I'd rather that we didn't clean up the logs this way because:
1) You've only removed errors from 10% of the logs.
2) You haven't removed the errors that both you
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 10:12 ---
well, we disagree ;) I'd appreciate some comments from the rest of the
committers on how they feel about this one. Here's a chat log between myself
and H
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 10:16 ---
so in summary:
- I think we should try to make the logs as clean as possible
- Henry thinks we should keep the logs as they are, and use that to estimate a
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 11:06 ---
Here are my misclassifications (I guess whether or not it matters is still up
for debate):
Virus Bounce:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 14:55 ---
My only misclassify:
/Users/rod/spam/Maildir/.spam.2004-12/cur/1103575966.15119_0.blazing.arsecandle.org,S=18955:2,S
is really ham.
--- You are receiving
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4448
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4161
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 15:58 ---
applied to trunk
Sendinglib/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm
Sendinglib/Mail/SpamAssassin/DBBasedAddrList.pm
Sending
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4504
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 16:09 ---
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4502
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 16:10 ---
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4487
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4161
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|triage |
... few rule writers.
This is explicitly what you (we) are trying to change.
Is there a HOWTO for prospective rules writers?
Examples maybe?
If so, it should be more obvious from the spamassassin main web page.
If not, then IMO documentation about the current process would
be more helpful
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 18:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=3044)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=3044action=view)
freqs for scoreset 3, all logs
fyi -- here's the freqs
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 18:15 ---
btw, more hits that look very iffy, from the freqs file:
0.333 0.0546 0.88870.058 0.26 -4.30 RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED
0.051 0.0130 0.1267
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
I just spent 45 minutes or so staring at the PerMsgStatus code and figuring
out a bit more about how it works. Baroque! Still, there is the basis of a
concept underlying the implementation, and it doesn't *look* like it
Hello Henry,
Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 6:39:22 PM, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-28 19:19 ---
Subject: Re: Score generation for SpamAssassin 3.1
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 06:15:52PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that seems like a *LOT* of Bonded Sender
[Lots of stuff snipped]
You know, it'd be nice if Daniel, or anyone else, checked in my
optimised PMS.pm [*] in as a branch. That way it can be worked on
easily by multiple people. An optimisation branch would mean you can
continue with the current release work, while others work on
-Original Message-
From: scottn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a HOWTO for prospective rules writers?
Examples maybe?
If so, it should be more obvious from the spamassassin main web page.
If not, then IMO documentation about the current process
would be more helpful than
24 matches
Mail list logo
