On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Axb wrote:
On 04/05/2014 07:33 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> The masscheck spam corpus isn't pathetically small, but at the moment
> it's *strongly* biased towards the traffic *you* are seeing. Your spam
> is 490k+ of the 510k total
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Axb wrote:
On 04/05/2014 07:33 PM, John Hardin wrote:
The masscheck spam corpus isn't pathetically small, but at the moment
it's *strongly* biased towards the traffic *you* are seeing. Your spam
is 490k+ of the 510k total corpus.
Should I feel guilty for only masscheck
On 04/05/2014 07:33 PM, John Hardin wrote:
The masscheck spam corpus isn't pathetically small, but at the moment
it's *strongly* biased towards the traffic *you* are seeing. Your spam
is 490k+ of the 510k total corpus.
Should I feel guilty for only masschecking the last 21 days?
That was on
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Axb wrote:
On 04/05/2014 06:42 PM, John Hardin wrote:
I'd rather not have to resort to hitting the masscheck system over the
head with the "tflags publish" cluebat, but I will if it keeps ignoring
these rules.
this would by very unwise and would create rule bloat as obv
On 04/05/2014 06:59 PM, Axb wrote:
If Darxus sees so much of this type, why isn't he running a masschecker?
opps. sorry- I hand't seen he is indeed participating.
On 04/05/2014 06:42 PM, John Hardin wrote:
I'd rather not have to resort to hitting the masscheck system over the
head with the "tflags publish" cluebat, but I will if it keeps ignoring
these rules.
this would by very unwise and would create rule bloat as obviosuly the
corpus isn't seeing much
Could someone who understands the scoring logic used by the perceptron or
GA please comment on why this rule (and others like it) are only being
scored at 0.01?
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20140404-r1584563-n/T_DX_TEXT_02/detail
I would think that a rule which hits nothing but spam (S/O 1.0
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6444
--- Comment #27 from peter gervai ---
Sorry, it seems only the latest release contains the patch and I didn't find it
in the svn right away. 3.4.x contains the patch.
Still I see a few deadlocks but not that much:
2014-04-05 11:40:55 C
20140404: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20140404
20140404: Spam: 516670, Ham: 144507
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6444
--- Comment #26 from peter gervai ---
Well I was sent here (by based on the duplicate at the bottom) and yes, this is
still problem, and additional problem is that the suggested code to be renamed
use a nonexistant SQL function:
2014-04
10 matches
Mail list logo
