From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Thu Aug 29 11:08:46 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 9BB5A47C77 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:06:18 -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 11:06:18 +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 g7T66TZ01029 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:06:30 +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 17kIQS-0006mo-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:05:04 -0700 Received: from yrex.com ([216.40.247.31] helo=host.yrex.com) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17kIPo-0005vK-00 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:04:25 -0700 Received: (qmail 4581 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 06:04:22 -0000 Received: from mgm.dsl.xmission.com (HELO opus) (204.228.152.186) by yrex.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 06:04:22 -0000 From: "Michael Moncur" To: Subject: RE: [SAtalk] O.T. Habeus -- Why? Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: 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 00:04:14 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:04:14 -0600 X-Pyzor: Reported 0 times. X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.2 required=7.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, SPAM_PHRASE_03_05,USER_AGENT_OUTLOOK version=2.40-cvs X-Spam-Level: > I think I've worked on SA enough to understand that I can localize a > score. I'm just not comfortable with using SpamAssassin as a vehicle > for drumming up your business at the expense of our user base. This is exactly what I think. SpamAssassin has always been conservative about adding unproven RBLs and such, and this should be the same. > I think it would make more sense to start Habeas with a less aggressive > score (one which will not give spammers a quick path into everyone's > inbox) and after we've seen evidence that the system works, then we can > increase the magnitude of the score. I say start it with a zero score and put it in 70_cvs_rules_under_test like any other unproven rule. Then score it based on actual results, not promises. My corpus does not yet contain a single non-spam (or spam) message with a Habeas mark. Based on that, it doesn't impress me and it wouldn't impress the GA either. Rules with exactly the same statistics are being dropped from SA right now, and I don't see why this should be any different. -- Michael Moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ "Furious activity is no substitute for understanding." --H. H. Williams ------------------------------------------------------- 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