Re: NOTICE: 3.1.0 rescoring mass-checks

[Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 08:30:19PM -0700, Robert Menschel wrote:
> a) For those of us not intimately familiar with the numeric values of
> date/time in perl, what --after value would bring us to Jan 1 2005?

Hrm.  1041397200 was 1/1/03.  +365 days is 1072933200, which was 1/1/04.
+366 days is 1104555600, which was 1/1/05. :)

> b) I am concerned that starting a full rescoring mass-check against a
> large corpus will take longer than allowed.  I'll have to abort, and
> send in what I have, but "what I have" will be the results generated

I'd suggest letting it run for a little bit and estimate out how many
messages you can run through in the time allotted.  I'm doing the
same thing.  It's not 100%, but after 15-30 minutes you should be able
to multiply out and determine the # of messages you can run through (I
leave some wiggle room of 1-2 days), then restart the mass-check with
that many messages.

> for older emails, not newer emails. Would it be appropriate to have
> mass-check process emails newest to oldest?

No.  It needs to go in order, oldest to newest for Bayes.

-- 
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." - Jessica Rabbit

Re: NOTICE: 3.1.0 rescoring mass-checks

[Rod Begbie <ro...@gmail.com>]

On 6/30/05, Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > a) For those of us not intimately familiar with the numeric values of
> > date/time in perl, what --after value would bring us to Jan 1 2005?
> 
> Hrm.  1041397200 was 1/1/03.  +365 days is 1072933200, which was 1/1/04.
> +366 days is 1104555600, which was 1/1/05. :)

--after "-6 months" works for me.

Rod.

-- 
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::