Re: new rule->sa-update speedup idea (was Re: spam attacks - so and so wrote about a stock )

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

Duncan Findlay writes:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:07:01PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> 
> > Theo Van Dinter writes:
> > in other words, reducing the worst-case scenario to just under 1 day. (If
> > we were to increase frequency of update publishing in the future, that
> > would then reduce that further, if necessary.)
> 
> > Rules that got promoted based on "being new" and having a 1.0 S/O in the
> > preflight mass-checks would then only *stay* promoted if they then passed
> > the normal, existing promotion criteria -- so a rule that was good
> > "enough" to get into the update due to a 1.0 S/O, but had FPs on the
> > larger test set, would fall out anyway after 1 day.
> 
> I think I'd want to see a spam% restriction on there
> too.

Sure.

> Unfortunately, this probably wont help, since (correct me if I'm
> wrong) the preflight mass-checks are old messages, not brand new ones,
> right? This would mean they wouldn't get a good S/O ratio anyways.

Actually, at least for one of the preflight corpora (mine), they're
uploaded nightly, so a max of 24 hours old. ;)

--j.