Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proportional spam rank #38

Open
erikyo opened this issue Apr 3, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Proportional spam rank #38

erikyo opened this issue Apr 3, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@erikyo
Copy link
Collaborator

erikyo commented Apr 3, 2023

Currently the spam ranking system works that each test is given a score and if you fail the test this "score", goes into the total score and if this is greater than 1 the email is spam.

It works but meh, it is a bit brute force, especially if the user decides to use many filters. It would be better to create a proportional system where the score and the maximum score are counted, and if the score exceeds a certain percentage it is spam

In short now suppose we have 10 spam tests -> {0.7, 0.8, .25, .25, .25, .25, .25, .25, .25, .25}

With the old system to detect spam a non spam bot can fail the first and second test and maybe without it being true it will be banned.

In "new" way the total score would be 3.5 and, assuming a 50% tolerance of the value of failed tests, one could "allow" failed tests to total about 1.75

This would allow for more accurate user control of what is judged as spam, avoiding false positives when many filters are employed

@erikyo erikyo added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 3, 2023
@erikyo
Copy link
Collaborator Author

erikyo commented Jan 21, 2024

@Yerrun This should fix the problem of the antispam being too 'aggressive'. Is scheduled as soon as I have time to do so will be added

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant