meaningful or not?

[David Relson]

At 08:09 AM 2/15/03, Greg Louis wrote:

>On 20030214 (Fri) at 1629:14 -0500, David Relson wrote:
>
> > I've also run mkdb and runex with the results shown below.  Do they seem
> > reasonable or are they all messed up?  Would you care to hazard an
> > interpretation as to their meaning?
> >
> > .MSG_COUNT             4587  17060
>
> > [relson at osage runex.0214.d]$ date ; runex
> > Fri Feb 14 16:16:36 EST 2003
> >
> > n   0.025 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.931959, run0...  5, run1...  4
> > n   0.050 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.933136, run0...  5, run1...  4
> > n   0.075 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.979940, run0...  2, run1...  1
> > n   0.100 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.979940, run0...  2, run1...  1
> > n   0.125 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.979940, run0...  2, run1...  1
> >
> > y   0.025 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.946613, run0...  4, run1...  4
> > y   0.050 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.946613, run0...  5, run1...  4
> > y   0.075 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.991569, run0...  0, run1...  0
> > y   0.100 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.991569, run0...  0, run1...  0
> > y   0.125 fpos... 4 at cutoff 0.993307, run0...  0, run1...  0
>
>The cutoffs look reasonable, but the fn's are a spam hater's dream :)

I thought they might be indecently good - which is why I asked.

>Judging by your earlier results, it appears as though you might be
>counting only "ternary" fn's, ie spams classed as nonspam but not spams
>classed as unsure -- which have to be regarded as fn in a binary sense.
>
>You sent me copies of your versions of mkdb and runex, and they look
>fine; I didn't see any problems with either -- but I'm not familiar
>with the operations of the config file logic, nor with current
>bogofilter in binary mode.  Those being the differences between your
>way of testing and mine, I'd naturally look for something there first.
>As a first step I'd print the output of the bogofilter call in function
>wrapper to make sure classification is happening correctly, with a 1 at
>the beginning of every record where the message should have been
>classed as spam (spamicity > cutoff), and something other than 1 as the
>first character of every record where the message should not have been
>classed as spam based on the cutoff.

When I use ternary mode, I'm triggering the dainbramage message:

[relson at osage runex.0214.d]$ runex
n   0.025 fpos...dainbramage at -e line 3, <> line 2018.
./runex: line 37: let: fpos=/2: syntax error: operand expected (error token 
is "/2")
  0 at cutoff 0.000000, run0...

I've added " | tee -a getco.$mode.save" " | tee -a runex.$mode.save", to 
will see what I get.

By