94 lines
3.8 KiB
Plaintext
94 lines
3.8 KiB
Plaintext
From craig@hughes-family.org Mon Sep 2 13:12:49 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <craig@hughes-family.org>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
|
|
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7600944161
|
|
for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:38:06 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
|
|
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
|
|
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 02 Sep 2002 12:38:06 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net
|
|
[207.69.200.226]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
|
|
g81B83Z21386 for <jm@jmason.org>; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 12:08:03 +0100
|
|
Received: from user-1120fqe.dsl.mindspring.com ([66.32.63.78]
|
|
helo=belphegore.hughes-family.org) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with
|
|
esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lSaV-0007tD-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 07:08:16 -0400
|
|
Received: from belphegore.hughes-family.org (belphegore.hughes-family.org
|
|
[10.0.240.200]) by belphegore.hughes-family.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
|
|
BEB2D3C545; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 04:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 04:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
From: Craig R Hughes <craig@hughes-family.org>
|
|
Reply-To: craig@stanfordalumni.org
|
|
To: Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@pathname.com>
|
|
Cc: "Craig R.Hughes" <craig@deersoft.com>,
|
|
Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org>,
|
|
SpamAssassin Developers <spamassassin-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
|
|
Subject: Re: [SAdev] results of scorer evaluation
|
|
In-Reply-To: <yf27ki6cco2.fsf@proton.pathname.com>
|
|
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209010357090.5726-100000@belphegore.hughes-family.org>
|
|
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
|
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
|
|
|
|
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
|
|
|
|
DQ> Before we release, it'd be great if someone could test a few
|
|
DQ> additional score ranges. Maybe we can lower FPs a bit more. :-)
|
|
|
|
I don't think there's much more room for lowering FPs left which the GA can
|
|
achieve. Remember, also, that the AWL will reduce FPs, but its effects aren't
|
|
factored in to the GA scores.
|
|
|
|
The work currently being done on the GA, and comparing different methods of
|
|
doing the score-setting, is very worthwhile, and extremely useful; however, we
|
|
really ought to get a release out, since 2.31 is getting decreasingly useful as
|
|
time goes on.
|
|
|
|
The FP/FN rate of 2.40 with pretty well *any* score-setting mechanism will be
|
|
better than 2.31 -- we can continue with adjusting how the scores are set on the
|
|
2.41 or 2.50 branches.
|
|
|
|
DQ> Something like:
|
|
DQ>
|
|
DQ> for (low = -12; low <= -4; low += 2)
|
|
DQ> for (high = 2; high <= 6; high += 2)
|
|
DQ> evolve
|
|
|
|
You could just allow low and high to be evolved by the GA (within ranges); I'd
|
|
be enormously surprised if it didn't end up with low=-12 and high=+6, since
|
|
that'd give the GA the broadest lattitude in setting individual scores. The
|
|
issue with fixing low and high is not one of optimization, but rather one of
|
|
human-based concern that individual scores larger than about +4 are dangerous
|
|
and liable to generate FPs, and individual scores less than -8 are dangerous and
|
|
liable to be forged to generate FNs.
|
|
|
|
DQ> Maybe even add a nybias loop.
|
|
|
|
Adding an nybias loop is not worthwhile -- changing nybias scores will just
|
|
alter the evaluation function's idea of what the FP:FN ratio should be.
|
|
|
|
DQ> > AFAIK there's nothing major hanging out waiting to be checked in
|
|
DQ> > on b2_4_0 is there?
|
|
DQ>
|
|
DQ> Nope.
|
|
|
|
Great!
|
|
|
|
DQ> > I'll be on IM most of today, tomorrow, and monday while cranking
|
|
DQ> > on the next Deersoft product release (should be a fun one). Hit
|
|
DQ> > me at:
|
|
DQ> >
|
|
DQ> > AIM: hugh3scr
|
|
DQ> > ICQ: 1130120
|
|
DQ> > MSN: craig@stanfordalumni.org
|
|
DQ> > YIM: hughescr
|
|
DQ>
|
|
DQ> We've been hanging out on IRC at irc.rhizomatic.net on #spamassassin
|
|
DQ> (the timezone difference gets in the way, though).
|
|
|
|
I've been searching for that, but I guess the details of where the channel was
|
|
got lost in the shuffle.
|
|
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|