On 12/10/15 10:58, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Dec 2015, at 13:25, Paul Stead wrote:
On 10/12/15 18:23, Paul Stead wrote:
On 10/12/15 17:24, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Dec 2015, at 10:48, Paul Stead wrote:
0.004% hit rate on ham
Clarify this please: 4 out of 100k hits are ham (not so bad) OR 4 out
of 100k hams get hit (OUCH)
The former, 4 out of 100k hit are ham emails
Re-clarifying - out of 100k ham emails, 4 of these hit on this iXhash
So: unfit for a high score (e.g. the suggested 5) on a system
receiving a lot of ham. Good to know.
I think 4 out of 100,000 FP is really good. 58% overlap is more
confirmation that a spam is a spam. But that means 42% is new spam not
caught by other iXhash. So - not phenomenal - but not bad.
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Junk Email Filter dot com
415-992-3400
