Justin Mason wrote: > Joseph Brennan writes: > > >> OVERALL SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME > > >> 1.116 1.5957 0.2705 0.855 0.51 2.08 SUBJ_ALL_CAPS > > No, it's high. Only 1.87% had all caps subject, but of those 85% > > were spam: 1.60 / 1.87. > > If I am reading correctly. > > That's right.
Ah... That makes more sense to me now. Thanks for the clarification. > The problem with SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is that it tends to catch really odd > fraud spams, foreign-language spam etc. that the other rules fail to > spot; this means that the GA likes it quite a lot, since despite > the occasional FP, it reduces FNs enough to make it "worth it". Sure. All is good here. > it's hard to avoid this issue. :( Let me stress that I wasn't unhappy with this rule. It isn't scored enough by itself anyway to create a FP. It was just a part of several things. It is just something that people can affect by creating the messages either one way or another. So the visibility is because it is such a simple thing that a sender can do to affect the result. Thanks for the explanations of the hit ratios! Bob
