Re: FPs on URI_HEX NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR

2014-11-12 Thread Joe Quinn
On 11/9/2014 11:07 AM, David B Funk wrote: On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, David B Funk wrote: For NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR the rule is: /^https?\:\/\/\d{7}/is If that pattern were terminated like: /^https?\:\/\/\d{7}(?::\d+)?(?:\/|$)/is it should prevent the FPs (hopefully with out destroying its

Re: FPs on URI_HEX NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR

2014-11-12 Thread David B Funk
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Joe Quinn wrote: On 11/9/2014 11:07 AM, David B Funk wrote: On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, David B Funk wrote: For NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR the rule is: /^https?\:\/\/\d{7}/is If that pattern were terminated like: /^https?\:\/\/\d{7}(?::\d+)?(?:\/|$)/is it should prevent the FPs

Re: FPs on URI_HEX NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR

2014-11-12 Thread John Hardin
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, David B Funk wrote: In my first message I included an example URL from an Amtrak ticket notification that it fired on. ... That same message also fired on URI_HEX, URIBL_RHS_DOB, STYLE_GIBBERISH, and MPART_ALT_DIFF which were enough to overcome the BAYES_00 and cause an

Re: FPs on URI_HEX NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR

2014-11-09 Thread David B Funk
On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, David B Funk wrote: For NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR the rule is: /^https?\:\/\/\d{7}/is If that pattern were terminated like: /^https?\:\/\/\d{7}(?::\d+)?(?:\/|$)/is it should prevent the FPs (hopefully with out destroying its effectiveness) Oops, for that new formulation it would