[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#202373: traitor offstage

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > From: Thornton B.Roddy <qcd@ecomm1.fidnet.com>
> > Newsgroups: gmane.linux.debian.devel.debbugs
> > Subject: Bug#202373: traitor offstage
> > Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:56:58 +0300
> []
> > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02  (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on rietz.debian.org
> > X-Spam-Level: ***
> > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.5 required=4.0 tests=WBRS autolearn=no  version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
> > Resent-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:06:02 +0000
> Smart dude have managed to get here with all that CC and stuff.
> My question is, is `required=4.0' justified? How much score have the
> most wired bug report with garbage, as bug info? A wild guess is
> -0.0 .. 2.0, but 4.0?

The question is at which point the false positives and false negatives
are appropriate. The lower the score goes, the more false positives we
have, which are more insidious and difficult to deal with than false

Additionally, Blars Blarson actually examines messages within that
range and adapts the rules to catch them in the future and deletes
them from the bugs as appropriate.

So yes, in short, it is justified.

Don Armstrong

Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't
bet, you can't win.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p240

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: