On 04/05/2014 07:33 PM, John Hardin wrote:
The masscheck spam corpus isn't pathetically small, but at the moment it's *strongly* biased towards the traffic *you* are seeing. Your spam is 490k+ of the 510k total corpus.
Should I feel guilty for only masschecking the last 21 days?
That was only an example. There are other rules for spam that I'm receiving, and I have some contact with a fairly large ISP that has been seeing similar traffic and reporting FNs to me, but the rules aren't doing well in masscheck. My personal message traffic is pretty small, and I don't know whether the ISP can devote any resources to performing masschecks.
I've offered to run masschecks if ppl can't setup themselves but if I don't get the data...
DNSWL was feeding me a spam trickle but that has dissapeared as well.
I've been considering publishing a separate rules feed for apparently-useful rules like this that masscheck doesn't seem to consider worthy, I may have to consider that idea more seriously.
I'm personally in favour of ppl running separate repositories, a la SARE, but that seems against the project's aims.
For the moment, though, I think I will "tflags publish" a couple of my recent high-S/O rules. I wasn't proposing doing it en masse.
imo, if we all start doing this for a couple of rules which perform well in a small eco system the collective turns into "en masse".
but then... go for it
