From: jm@jmason.org  Wed Sep 18 12:57:54 2002
Return-Path: <yyyy@example.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@example.com
Received: by example.com (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 4376516F1C; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:57:54 +0100 (IST)
Received: from example.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 40A2CF7B1; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:57:54 +0100 (IST)
To: Matt Kettler <mkettler_sa@comcast.net>
Cc: yyyy@example.com (Justin Mason),
	SpamAssassin-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [SAdev] phew! 
In-Reply-To: Message from Matt Kettler <mkettler_sa@comcast.net> 
   of "Wed, 18 Sep 2002 02:04:29 EDT." <5.1.1.6.0.20020918014722.00a99b20@mail.comcast.net> 
From: yyyy@example.com (Justin Mason)
X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A  6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A
X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring
X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated
X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm)
X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm)
X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this
X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas
X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant
X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam.  Please report use of this
X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>.
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:57:49 +0100
Sender: yyyy@example.com
Message-Id: <20020918115754.4376516F1C@example.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=7.0
	tests=AWL,HABEAS_SWE,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
	version=2.50-cvs
X-Spam-Level: 


Matt Kettler said:
> Ok, first, the important stuff. Happy birthday Justin (a lil late, but
> oh well)

cheers!

> a 13% miss ratio on the spam corpus at 5.0 seems awfully high, although 
> that nice low FP percentage is quite nice, as is the narrow-in of average 
> FP/FN scores compared to 2.40.

As Dan said -- it's a hard corpus, made harder without the spamtrap data.

Also -- and this is an important point -- those measurements can't be
directly compared, because I changed the methodology.  In 2.40 the scores
were evolved on the entire corpus, then evaluated using that corpus; ie.
there was no "blind" testing, and the scores could overfit and still
provide good statistics.

In 2.42, they're evaluated "blind", on a totally unseen set of messages,
so those figures would be a lot more accurate for real-world use.

--j.

