http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2910
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-01-12 12:11 ------- yep; IIRC, it was either about the same accuracy as bayes alone, or was slightly worse. Search the sa-devel archives for "bayes tweaks" for details. The tests I did were to add the rule names as tokens, and also to add pairs of rules as tokens (e.g. a message that hit AWL,BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME would result in AWL+NO_REAL_NAME as a token). One tweak I did not test, however: rules that did *not* hit. e.g. that message (AWL,BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME) did not hit HABEAS_SWE, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY, HTML_40_50, and hundreds of other tests; the suggestion was that the *lack* of a rule hit was equally a useful ham token. See "masses/bayes-testing/README" for details on running 10fcv runs with SA bayes. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
