On 2/28/02 5:28 PM, "Scott Walde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it make sense to take a look at the ratio of spam to non-spam for
> each given rule, and to constrain the score to either -ve or +ve depending
> on which way the ratio leaned? This way, "monsterhut" may wander
> randomly, but i
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Shields wrote:
> Craig R Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > this is that rules which are really non-discriminators end up sometimes getting
> > odd-looking scores. For example, CYBER_FIRE_POWER is just not likely to really
> > be worth -4.020 if looked at in isola
On 2/28/02 7:27 AM, "Michael Shields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig R Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> this is that rules which are really non-discriminators end up sometimes
>> getting
>> odd-looking scores. For example, CYBER_FIRE_POWER is just no
On 2/28/02 7:06 AM, "Shane Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
>> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have
>> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think
>> any message deserves having its spam score
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>> To me, -ve scores on tests can also be used to "offset" spammy
>> messages in clean email. I have several of these of my own creation:
>
> Well, yes, that's true - SpamAssassin already includes a bunch of
> these, such as COPYRIGHT_CLAIMED and PHP_SIG
At 09:06 AM 2/28/2002 -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
>> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have
>> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think
>> any message deserves
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have
> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think
> any message deserves having its spam score reduced by 8 points by
> virtue of
