On 11/07/2012 10:12 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > On 11/07, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> Yeah, well it's her job title, so...? You misunderstand statistics. The >> data aren't wrong. > > Do I? I think it's more likely that you misunderstand what is expected of > spamassassin rules. >
Sorry, I was a little rude. But saying that she shouldn't put her job title anywhere in an email, ever, is ridiculous. The inputs (spam, ham) to the classifier are assumed god-given; and the classification needs to reflect the data, not the other way around. > Somebody really should put up a page in the wiki explaining that rules all > have false positives, and that's the entire reason we don't flag an email > as spam for any one rule, etc.. Sure, that's why I pointed out that LOTTO_AGENT also helps trigger ADVANCE_FEE_2_NEW_MONEY, and combined they score 7.8. > But if you provide us with more masscheck data, we can do a better job of > automatically calculating ideal scores. This is my fault, of course, but I'm not allowed to mass-check this stuff. It's ongoing legal correspondence.
