Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Robert Menschel writes:
> Hello Daniel,
> 
> Saturday, January 29, 2005, 9:46:05 PM, you wrote:
> 
> >>  - higher accuracy: lower FPs and lower FNs (rules, rules, rules... this
> >>    also includes some notion of speeding up the mass-check process)
> 
> DQ> I've been banging away on this.  We're closer to fixing the autolearn
> DQ> thing and Henry has expressed some interest in coordinating a test of
> DQ> perfect (train on everything) and perfect-sample (train on sample)
> DQ> learning.
> 
> DQ> bin-doph's ReplaceTags plugin will also really help with rule writing, I
> DQ> think, so I hope we get that into the tree soon.
> 
> DQ> I also now have a working prototype of network-test reuse code and boy
> DQ> does it speed up network mass-checks.
> 
> Look forward to all of those.  I'm also trying to develop a
> "mass-check installation/setup script" of my own, based on what you
> were able to give me last year, which will enable people to simply run
> a script and build a mass-check system. It will enable people to do
> their own mass-checks the way we do in SARE, and it will also enable
> them to participate in the primary nightly mass-check run.
> 
> My install/setup is still very rough, and has a long way to go, so I
> don't want to try to put a time table on it, but I have hopes it will
> be a help to people.

I'd really like to get mass-check a *lot* more usable -- not sure exactly
what would be involved, though. :(

That was the aim of Duncan's patch in bz, but unfortunately we didn't get
that into 3.0.0 and I think it's a little unlikely to be quite usable by
now.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFB/dO4MJF5cimLx9ARAqArAKCC/+r9BEVaPIE2tnD/J2/VJa5Y6ACgs2l1
GCYw9PHE0+TzPZlaE5STiyI=
=asrp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re[2]: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals

[Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net>]

Hello Daniel,

Sunday, January 30, 2005, 10:59:49 PM, you wrote:

DQ> jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) writes:

>> I'd really like to get mass-check a *lot* more usable -- not sure
>> exactly what would be involved, though. :(

DQ> I'd like to define what it means to make mass-check more usable before
DQ> we attempt to rewrite it.

Clarification: I'm not rewriting anything (except maybe one or two
sample scripts in masses/rule-qa).  All I'm attempting is to provide a
wrapper around the mass-check system that will enable people to use
what is already provided.

Bob Menschel

Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) writes:

> I'd really like to get mass-check a *lot* more usable -- not sure
> exactly what would be involved, though. :(

I'd like to define what it means to make mass-check more usable before
we attempt to rewrite it.
 
-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/