On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:59:51PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > > [re: net-daf] bizarre... all spam? > > Duncan had something weird going on with blank messages or something > like that. Maybe he should disable nightly runs until it's fixed.
I've disabled them; I'm going to need to look into this (I'm at work right now...) > I suspect some of his failures are for the same reason as mine, see > below. > > > [re: net-jm] fails are good, passes suck. > > As expected. > > > [re: net-quinlan] not terrific. > > Most of my failures are historical. SPF records unfortunately specify > "now", not "then". I suspect mine aren't as likely to be historic -- I'm running net tests on only 2 weeks of mail (IIRC). > > since SPF isn't a spam indicator, just a forgery indicator, as long as > > the hits are valid, I'm ok with the results? can people double check > > so we can either fix things or close the ticket? > > I'm not sure what we should do about failures. This might be a case > where we have to avoid using the GA and go with human set scores, > initially very low until SPF is more generally reliable. Or just "hint" perceptron accordingly... -- Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
