> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Hector Santos > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:44 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again > > This sounds like you are missing a point here.
And what point is that? > But it might help to > know a general makeup of the volume collection you have from the > standpoint if it was already pre-filtered. I guess you won't readily > know that without asking your contributors, but it would be good know > what level, if any, filtering was already done. All reporting sites are doing at least some RBL filtering, and all spam/not-spam flags are Spamassassin verdicts plus a few user-provided verdicts thrown in. > For your collection analysis, you will need a majority of the system > with "always accept" first operations so that you can get the large > spectrum of bad vs good mail. Then you will need a criteria for what > is considered "bad." I think that's unnecessary. If we can assume our reporting sites are typical, then the results are typically meaningful. It just means the results have to be taken in the same context in which the data were collected, which seems reasonable to me. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
