http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5376
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 23:47 ---
> if FP and FN are 0 -- ie there were no misclassifications [...]
> -- it yields a division by zero
That's an idea! Implement it and spammers will start pro
On Jul 27, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
Just wondering. would it be handy to have a new "body" type, the
same as
"body" but matched as a single string, with all newlines converted
to " "?
in other words, this text:
[...]
ie, no newlines, all whitespace converted to " ". this w
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5376
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 13:51 ---
lam sounds promising -- let's look into that.
btw there's another issue with the F(lambda) idea -- if FP and FN
are 0 -- ie there were no misclassifications,
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5574
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 13:49 ---
(In reply to comment #61)
> We need this in for 3.1 too, right?
>
> If we do, here's my +1 for committing to the 3.1 branch.
oh yeah. +1 here too (assuming
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5376
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 12:51 ---
Btw, the CEAS 2007 contest used the following metrics:
Filters will be evaluated using the lam() metric. Lam() calculates the
average of a filter's false
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5574
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5577
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 11:57 ---
Hi,
if i'am able to vote, I would vote +1 :-)
NicoP.
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watchi
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5376
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 11:25 ---
I should point out also that where I wrote "FN%" and "FP%" I really meant the
proportion of FN/FPs and not percentage, so you need to divide the percentage by
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5376
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 11:07 ---
That's exactly right, one FP% is worth 50 FN%, if you set lambda = 50. If you
don't like that tradeoff, pick a different value for lambda. :-)
I agree it get
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5107
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5519
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5376
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 10:46 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I propose the following new
> measurement. Let's call it the Findlay measurement:
>
> F(lambda) = 1 / (FN% + FP% * lambda)
>
> (
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5577
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|needs 2 votes for 3.2 |needs 1 votes for 3.2
---
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5527
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|needs 2 votes |needs 1 votes
--- Add
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5519
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|needs 1 vote for 3.2|go
--- Additional Com
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5107
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|needs 1 votes |go
--- Additional Com
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5508
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 09:04 ---
> ok, sounds like we have a problem then!(In reply to comment #7)
> ok, that's a problem then! I can't repro the bug with 0.13.0 and SA 3.2.2 on
> Linux/x86
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5508
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 08:52 ---
> ok, that's a problem then! I can't repro the bug with 0.13.0 and SA 3.2.2 on
> Linux/x86, so it may be a platform-specific, or ruleset-specific problem.
o
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5508
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-07 08:49 ---
ok, sounds like we have a problem then!(In reply to comment #7)
> Now that re2c 0.13.0 has been *released*, the problem as reported above
> continues.
ok, t
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5519
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|needs 2 votes for 3.2 |needs 1 vote for 3.2
--
I'm going to make a tarball for 3.2.3 now that bug 5574 (the setuid
bug) is fixed and in SVN. shout now if you object...
--j.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5574
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5508
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5475
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5544
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5397
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
Justin Mason writes:
> Theo Van Dinter writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 05:54:18PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> > > as far as I know, if they're rules in the "rulesrc" tree, it's
> > > C-T-R; but rules in the "rules" dir are still R-T-C.
> > >
> > > I'd be happy to loosen this up, though.
> >
Duncan Findlay writes:
> On Jul 27, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> > Just wondering. would it be handy to have a new "body" type, the
> > same as
> > "body" but matched as a single string, with all newlines converted
> > to " "?
> > in other words, this text:
>
> [...]
>
> > ie,
28 matches
Mail list logo
