Re: A different approach to scoring spamassassin hits

On Jun 30, 2007, at 1:20 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:

>
>
>
> Tom Allison wrote:
>> For some years now there has been a lot of effective spam
>> filtering using statistical approaches with variations on Bayesian
>> theory, some of these are inverse Chi Square modifications to
>> Niave Bayes or even CRM114 and other "languages" have been
>> developed to improve the scoring of statistical analysis of spam.
>> For all statistical processes the spamicity is always between 0
>> and 1.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Many Thanks for those of you who have read this far for your
>> patience and consideration.
>
> Tom, I suggested something somilar to that years ago and I'd still
> like to see it tried out. I wonder what would happen if you
> stripped ot the body and ran bayes just on the headers and the
> rules and let bayes figure it out. You do have to have some points
> to start with to get bayes pointed in the right direction. But you
> could use black lists and white lists to do bayes training. Also
> needs more rules to identify ham and not just rules to identify spam.

I was under the belief that there were Ham-centric tests that would result in negative point scorings.

Ham doesn't try to be evasive. It's pretty easy to identify. Without SA tagging much of it falls to <<0.5 and whitelisting would capture much of the exceptions.

As for headers only testing -- The first five lines of stock spam is very telling...

My question about SA is the PerMsgStatus (I think) Is this the place to retrieve all the rules information? I know today you can get a list of all the rules that HIT, but is there where you would look to find all the rules that were attempted? Or is there a better place for it? Received on Sat Jun 30 06:22:42 2007