Pardon the question but how are you generating these stats? Dave
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 21:35 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 07:05:52PM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote: > > > I made some major edits (1/3 smaller and also faster :) ), > > > but the core algorithm is the same. Overall, very good from > > > my results: > > > > Awesome... Thanks for that! But no *_MULTI_LARGO hits??? I have tons > > of these samples (today even) > > I was just comparing the original results to the new results, and neither have > the multi hits: > > old: > 7.127 8.3265 0.0000 1.000 0.87 3.00 T_DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO > 3.646 4.2602 0.0000 1.000 0.74 3.00 T_DC_IMAGE_SPAM > 0.576 0.6732 0.0000 1.000 0.23 3.00 T_DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.16 4.00 T_DC_GIF_MULTI_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.16 4.00 T_DC_PNG_MULTI_LARGO > > new: > 7.162 8.3673 0.0000 1.000 0.93 3.00 T_DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO > 3.681 4.3010 0.0000 1.000 0.79 3.00 T_DC_IMAGE_SPAM > 0.576 0.6732 0.0000 1.000 0.24 3.00 T_DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.17 4.00 T_DC_PNG_MULTI_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.17 4.00 T_DC_GIF_MULTI_LARGO > > Aha... I think I see the problem, your cf file had a typo that I didn't > catch (missing leading __ ...) :( the new new results: > > 7.162 8.3673 0.0000 1.000 0.95 3.00 T_DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO > 4.016 4.6920 0.0000 1.000 0.84 3.00 T_DC_IMAGE_SPAM > 0.666 0.7786 0.0000 1.000 0.36 4.00 T_DC_GIF_MULTI_LARGO > 0.576 0.6732 0.0000 1.000 0.31 3.00 T_DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.25 4.00 T_DC_PNG_MULTI_LARGO > > Hrm. Not sure how T_DC_IMAGE_SPAM got a bump there -- it's the same set of > input mail. >
