Optional Tests in Main Ruleset?

[Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>]

Hallo!

I've noticed a few rules now that seem to score *very* low.
For example: DYN_RDNS_AND_INLINE_IMAGE=0.001

Are these rules 'in development' and therefore not being assigned a 
significant score as of yet? Or, more interestingly, do they represent an 
'optional' set of rules that can be 'activated' by raising their score, 
but which will otherwise *always* have a low score by default?

If the latter, then by chance is there a compact listing of these rules 
that I could review and 'turn on' as needed? Or do I just have to watch 
for them in the headers?

- Charles

Re: Optional Tests in Main Ruleset?

[Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>]

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 09:18 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Hallo!
> 
> I've noticed a few rules now that seem to score *very* low.
> For example: DYN_RDNS_AND_INLINE_IMAGE=0.001

There are a lot of possible reasons for that, including informative only
rules (which are likely to have a description to that extent). Poor S/O
rating during the last GA run, but an otherwise potentially useful rule
would be another possible reason. Among others.


> Are these rules 'in development' and therefore not being assigned a 
> significant score as of yet? Or, more interestingly, do they represent an 
> 'optional' set of rules that can be 'activated' by raising their score, 
> but which will otherwise *always* have a low score by default?

Rules in stock are not "in development". Optional rules are more likely
disabled by default, IMHO -- though on the other hand, every single rule
pretty much is optional, and you're free to tweak it.

Just checked current ruleqa results -- looks quite decent indeed.
Doesn't hit a lot of spam, but pretty accurate. Feel free to raise the
score if it would help with your spam, just keep in mind its potential
to cause FPs for you when you do.


> If the latter, then by chance is there a compact listing of these rules 
> that I could review and 'turn on' as needed? Or do I just have to watch 
> for them in the headers?

Sorry, you have to watch them. ;)  There's no such list, and as I
mentioned before, there is a wide range of possible reasons.

Spam (and to a lesser extent, ham) does change, though, and a lot of the
current scores could be adjusted. Reports about FPs are the part usually
visible here. What's just not being reported are rules that are now much
more accurate and candidates for higher scores than they used to be.

  guenther


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}