Bug 74 - bad rules lead to bad GA scores
Summary: bad rules lead to bad GA scores
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Rules (show other bugs)
Version: 2.30CVS
Hardware: All FreeBSD
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Craig Hughes
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-03-02 22:57 UTC by Ben Jackson
Modified: 2002-06-15 03:58 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ben Jackson 2002-03-02 22:57:08 UTC 
Poorly specified rules like S[letter e]CTION_301 (which is basically
/s[e]ction.*301/i) which have great potential for matching spam have actually
ended up with NEGATIVE scores from the GA scoring because they are not specific
enough.  If that rule were better written to match actual instances of S.301
legislation it would surely get a positive GA score and be a useful rule.

I'm sure there are other instances.
Comment 1 Craig Hughes 2002-03-03 12:29:53 UTC 
Subject: Re:  New: bad rules lead to bad GA scores

Patches happily accepted.  Worth noting that after modifying the GA, the new 
score generated for that rule is now a more meaningful 1.650

bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org wrote:

> Date: Sat,  2 Mar 2002 22:57:08 -0800 (PST)
> From: bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org
> To: craig@hughes-family.org
> Subject: [Bug 74] New: bad rules lead to bad GA scores
> 
> http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74
> 
>            Summary: bad rules lead to bad GA scores
>            Product: Spamassassin
>            Version: 2.1CVS
>           Platform: All
>         OS/Version: FreeBSD
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P2
>          Component: Rules
>         AssignedTo: craig@hughes-family.org
>         ReportedBy: ben@ben.com
> 
> 
> Poorly specified rules like S[letter e]CTION_301 (which is basically
> /s[e]ction.*301/i) which have great potential for matching spam have actually
> ended up with NEGATIVE scores from the GA scoring because they are not specific
> enough.  If that rule were better written to match actual instances of S.301
> legislation it would surely get a positive GA score and be a useful rule.
> 
> I'm sure there are other instances.
> 
> 
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
> 
> 
>
Comment 2 Craig Hughes 2002-03-04 18:13:49 UTC 
Really a little vague to accept as a bug.  If you have specific suggestions for
specific rules, please reopen or file new bugs.