You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2010/02/09 20:14:40 UTC

[Bug 6325] FH_HAS_XID Poor S/O, strong score.

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6325

Adam Katz <an...@khopis.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |antispam@khopis.com

--- Comment #1 from Adam Katz <an...@khopis.com> 2010-02-09 11:14:38 UTC ---
Probably one of the faults of using a genetic algorithm; too many generations
will produce a little inbreeding and some unexpected results on a few children,
too few generations will produce something immature.  I think it makes perfect
sense that something like this, which hits almost no messages, fell through the
cracks.

http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100208-r907584-n/FH_HAS_XID/detail

  MSECS    SPAM%     HAM%     S/O    RANK   SCORE  NAME
      0   0.0060   0.0042   0.586    0.50    3.30  FH_HAS_XID

As to how the automated processes even keep it in the published ruleset (let
alone evade the hand-set score), that's a different puzzle.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.