Yet Another Ninja writes: > On 5/8/2007 7:18 PM, Kelsey Cummings wrote: > > Is anyone else seeing an increased FP rate after upgrading to 3.2? > > > > I've got a number of reports coming in like: > > > >> AXB_XMID_1212, which defaults to 3.899 and was > >> causing a fair amount of legitimate mail to one of our customers to fail > > > > Replace 'AXB_XMID_1212' with a handful of other rules with substantial > > scores and the reports are pretty much all the same. One rule with a high > > score matching on HAM with a couple of minor low scoring rules pushing the > > message over the edge. > > > > #counts AXB_XMID_1212 260s/0h of 19804 corpus (15215s/4589h) 5/10/07 > AXB_XMID_1212 -- suggested score: 1.666 (of 5) > > > #counts AXB_XMID_1212 272s/1h of 9297 corpus (4867s/4430h) 05/10/07 > AXB_XMID_1212 -- suggested score: 1.311 (of 5) > > > I wonder why it was scored so high... > > score AXB_XMID_1212 3.899 3.899 3.899 3.496 # n=2 > > JM?
I suspect it was the only rule hitting the spam it hit with few/zero FPs. take a look on the ruleqa site... --j.
