New header token tagging

[David Relson]

On 26 Sep 2003 07:10:46 +1000
michael at optusnet.com.au wrote:

> Matthias Andree <matthias.andree at gmx.de> writes:
> > David Relson <relson at osagesoftware.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Question 1:  Has anybody else noticed an effect from the new
> > > header tagging?  If so, what have you noticed?
> > 
> > Yes. Spam detection rate went down big time (read: more false
> > negatives); I didn't rebuild the data base though. No false
> > positives; train on error and train on some unsures.
> 
> That's what I'd expect. You need to rebuild the database
> for it to work properly.
> 
> (note that the fact that things changes for the worse
> when you didn't rebuild the database says that the
> header tokens really are important. :)

It does indeed show the value of header tokens.  I don't think that's
been debated recently.  The question has been one of form, not of
substance.

> > > Question 2: Have y'all a preference for "h:" vs. "head:"?
> > 
> > I prefer "h:".

Yep.

> > 
> > > Question 3:  Have y'all a preference for what '-H' should do?
> > 
> > I have a preference to drop 2/3rds of all options that we have. :->
> 
> :)

Perhaps when we go gold and release 1.0 we can pin a "deprecated" label
to the various options for backward compatiblity with the plan being to
delete them in, say, 6 months.