Mailing List Archive

Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Spamassassin Wiki" for change notification.

The following page has been changed by BobMenschel:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RulesProjStreamlining

The comment on the change is:
added some ideas about "extra" rule set files

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* TODO: criteria for overlap with existing rules? BobMenschel: The method I used for weeding out SARE rules that overlapped 3.0.0 rules, was to run a full mass-check with overlap analysis, and throw away anything where the overlap is less than 50%. Manually reviewing the remaining (significantly) overlapping rules was fairly easy. The command I use is: perl ./overlap ../rules/tested/$testfile.ham.log ../rules/tested/$testfile.spam.log | grep -v mid= | awk ' NR == 1 { print } ; $2 + 0 == 1.000 && $3 + 0 >= 0.500 { print } ' >../rules/tested/$testfile.overlap.out

A ruleset in the "extra" set would have different criteria.
+ * DanielQuinlan suggested: The second, a collection that do not qualify for rules/core. For example, SpamAssassin intentionally doesn't filter virus bounces (yet, at least), but there is a good virus bounce ruleset out there.
+ * BobMenschel: Similarly, an "extra" rules set might include rules that positively identify spam from spamware, but hit <0.25% of spam. Or an "aggressive" rules set might include rules that hit with an S/O of only 0.89, but push a lot of spam over the 5.0 threshold without impacting significantly on ham.

We can also vote for extraordinary stuff that doesn't fit into those criteria...

Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Spamassassin Wiki" for change notification.

The following page has been changed by BobMenschel:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RulesProjStreamlining

The comment on the change is:
Added Chris Santerre comment about aggressiveness

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A ruleset in the "extra" set would have different criteria.
* DanielQuinlan suggested: The second, a collection that do not qualify for rules/core. For example, SpamAssassin intentionally doesn't filter virus bounces (yet, at least), but there is a good virus bounce ruleset out there.
* BobMenschel: Similarly, an "extra" rules set might include rules that positively identify spam from spamware, but hit <0.25% of spam. Or an "aggressive" rules set might include rules that hit with an S/O of only 0.89, but push a lot of spam over the 5.0 threshold without impacting significantly on ham.
+ * ChrisSanterre: Seeing this breakdown of dirs, gave me an idea. Why not set the "aggresiveness" of SA for updates? Like how SARE has ruleset0.cf (no ham hits), ruleset1.cf (few ham, high S/O), etc., with each "level" of rule set file getting slightly more aggressive, risking (though not necessarily seeing) slightly higher FP rates. Users could set some config like supdate=(1-4), with 1 being the most conservative, and 4 being the most aggresive (with the knowledge that more aggresive *could* possibly cause more FPs).

We can also vote for extraordinary stuff that doesn't fit into those criteria...