From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Thu Aug 29 17:35:05 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15AE143F99 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:35:04 +0100 (IST) Received: from usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net (usw-sf-fw2.sourceforge.net [216.136.171.252]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TGYiZ20463 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:34:44 +0100 Received: from usw-sf-list1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.13] helo=usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net) by usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17kSF9-0001Qi-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:34:03 -0700 Received: from joseki.proulx.com ([216.17.153.58]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17kSED-000405-00 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:33:05 -0700 Received: from misery.proulx.com (misery.proulx.com [192.168.1.108]) by joseki.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DF514B33 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:32:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: by misery.proulx.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 72129A8369; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:32:57 -0600 (MDT) To: Spamassassin-Talk Subject: Re: [SAtalk] O.T. Habeus -- Why? Message-Id: <20020829163257.GD10973@misery.proulx.com> Mail-Followup-To: Spamassassin-Talk References: <20020829160017.9E3C643F99@phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9amGYk9869ThD9tj" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020829160017.9E3C643F99@phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: bob@proulx.com (Bob Proulx) Sender: spamassassin-talk-admin@example.sourceforge.net Errors-To: spamassassin-talk-admin@example.sourceforge.net X-Beenthere: spamassassin-talk@example.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9-sf.net Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Talk about SpamAssassin List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Original-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:32:57 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:32:57 -0600 --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Justin Mason [2002-08-29 17:00:12 +0100]: > Well, my point is more that we should aim our rescoring algorithm so that > a spam hits 5.0. Any higher does us no good, as it means an FP is > a lot harder to recover from, using compensation rules. Agreed. But I have always thought that the value 5 was not the best value. It should have been 0. I understand that initially only spammy scores were included. But I believe the algorithm should be purely symmetrical and non-spammy negative values should also have been balancing out the spammy positive values, like they do in SA today. Then anything that was positive would be spam and anything negative would be non-spam. (And I guess exactly zero is grey. :-) Today's choice of 5 just adds an offset. Which I think cause people to assume things work differently than they do. Bob --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9bky50pRcO8E2ULYRAjI6AJwMoi8s2IUg4XpVAwCqpBC3gcd/cQCfepOm COS03YufMiFLSHhCZ8KkLxU= =YwM7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9amGYk9869ThD9tj-- ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list Spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk