-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Bill McCormick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 31. März 2007 05:54 An: users@spamassassin.apache.org Betreff: Re: Missing tests/scores?
Matt Kettler wrote: > Bill McCormick wrote: >> OK, so they're parts of normal conversations. And geocites is a real >> domain too, which scores fairly high since it's so prevalent in real >> world spam. If this mail would have scored just 1 more point, we would >> not even be having this conversation because SA would have deleted it. >> Having a individual rules for this sort of thing that, when taken >> together with other scores seems to be exactly what SA is all about. > > Fair enough. Personally I don't have the end goal of trying to get all > my spam high scoring enough it gets deleted. I'm quite happy to > autodelete about half of it, and have the other half tagged and shuffled > into a junk box for my casual skimming. From this perspective, my > primary reaction was "hell, the score of the thing's over 13 points, > what more do you need?" > I worked the same way for some time. Then I found SARE. Now it's like an obsession; must delete spam; must delete ALL spam :) >> Maybe some of my custom scores could be further raised and/or my >> sa_delete setting lowered, but they seem pretty reasonable and in line >> with what others are doing. >> How many rules do I need? As many as it takes. What's the rule count >> up to anyway? >> >> Anyway, I think I'll try my hand at writing some rules for this. > > > Just be aware that in general adding on more and more rules shifts up > the average score of both spam and nonspam. Ideally, your spam rules > should be as spam specific as possible, so this effect is more > noticeable in the spam, and less noticeable in the nonspam. At the most > extreme end, adding a lot of rules with very poor selectivity is on > average the same as reducing your thresholds. > > Writing rules is easy, writing good rules is sometimes less obvious than > your think. > How true. I'm familiar with this axiom in my own line of work. > I strongly suggest a quick read of the version of the rules writing > guide over in the wiki, precluded by the admission that I am biased here > as I wrote the original text, but many have helped me along the way and > others have built much upon it since. > > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules > > Even if you know the mechanics of regexes and SA syntax, the "writing > better rules" at the end is quite handy. > Thanks!!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
