bogotune suggests spam_cutoff of 0?

[Jonathan Kamens]

As the bogotune output below shows (bogofilter 1.2.0), it seems to have run
properly, but at the end, it recommended a spam_cutoff value of 0.000000.
That seems absurdly wrong.

 

Both the notspam and bogospam archives fed into bogotune are correct, i.e.,
the notspam archive contains only ham and the bogospam archive contains only
ham.


Does anybody have any idea what's up with this?  I've never seen it before.

 

Thanks,

 

  Jik

 

+ bogotune -D -T 0 -n /tmp/notspam -s /tmp/bogospam

Warning: test messages include many high scoring nonspam.

         You may wish to reclassify them and rerun.

    high ham scores:

       1 1.000000

       2 0.992545

       3 0.992532

    low spam scores:

       1 0.000000

Initial x value is 0.520000

False-positive target is 3 (cutoff 0.975000)

Performing coarse scan:

2940
[......................................................................]

Top ten parameter sets from this scan:

        rs     md    rx    spesf    nsesf    co     fp  fn   fppc   fnpc

 2096 0.0100 0.060 0.570 0.007517 0.100113 0.6310    3   4  1.2000 1.1799

 2095 0.0100 0.060 0.570 0.007517 0.237305 0.6363    3   4  1.2000 1.1799

 2103 0.0100 0.060 0.570 0.003171 0.100113 0.6570    3   4  1.2000 1.1799

 2094 0.0100 0.060 0.570 0.007517 0.562500 0.6648    3   4  1.2000 1.1799

 2102 0.0100 0.060 0.570 0.003171 0.237305 0.6789    3   4  1.2000 1.1799

 1982 0.0100 0.060 0.520 0.042235 0.562500 0.5049    3   5  1.2000 1.4749

 2341 0.0100 0.140 0.420 0.007517 0.100113 0.5064    3   5  1.2000 1.4749

 1268 0.1000 0.140 0.470 0.003171 0.562500 0.5084    3   5  1.2000 1.4749

 1353 0.1000 0.140 0.420 0.017818 0.237305 0.5119    3   5  1.2000 1.4749

 1465 0.1000 0.220 0.470 0.003171 0.237305 0.5151    3   5  1.2000 1.4749

 

Minimum found at s 0.0100, md 0.060, x 0.570, spesf 0.007517, nsesf 0.100113

        fp 3 (1.2000%), fn 4 (1.1799%)

 

Performing fine scan:

4410
[......................................................................]

Top ten parameter sets from this scan:

        rs     md    rx    spesf    nsesf    co     fp  fn   fppc   fnpc

 3895 0.0100 0.062 0.596 0.007517 0.115600 0.6441    3   2  1.2000 0.5900

 3903 0.0100 0.062 0.596 0.006510 0.100113 0.6443    3   2  1.2000 0.5900

 3894 0.0100 0.062 0.596 0.007517 0.133484 0.6457    3   2  1.2000 0.5900

 3886 0.0100 0.062 0.596 0.008680 0.154134 0.6463    3   2  1.2000 0.5900

 4131 0.0100 0.076 0.596 0.008680 0.154134 0.6356    3   3  1.2000 0.8850

 4132 0.0100 0.076 0.596 0.008680 0.133484 0.6359    3   3  1.2000 0.8850

 4124 0.0100 0.076 0.596 0.010023 0.154134 0.6362    3   3  1.2000 0.8850

 4139 0.0100 0.076 0.596 0.007517 0.133484 0.6363    3   3  1.2000 0.8850

 4140 0.0100 0.076 0.596 0.007517 0.115600 0.6364    3   3  1.2000 0.8850

 4125 0.0100 0.076 0.596 0.010023 0.133484 0.6366    3   3  1.2000 0.8850

 

256 outliers encountered.

Minimum found at s 0.0100, md 0.048, x 0.570, spesf 0.004882, nsesf 0.133484

        fp 3 (1.2000%), fn 4 (1.1799%)

 

Performing final scoring:

Spam...  Non-Spam...

0.002138 0.723810

0.495063 0.723777

0.609320 0.650470

0.633773 0.638916

0.656996 0.627063

0.666932 0.619914

0.675344 0.613948

0.711605 0.589086

0.715091 0.554175

0.723861 0.495431

 

Recommendations:

 

---cut---

db_cachesize=4

robs=0.0100

min_dev=0.048

robx=0.570000

sp_esf=0.004882

ns_esf=0.133484

spam_cutoff=0.000000    # for 0.00% fp (0); expect 0.00% fn (0).

ham_cutoff=0.100

---cut---

 

Tuning completed.