: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Negative
weighting filters to reduce false positives
Well you make a good point on the value of NOABUSE
and NOPOSTMASTER. NOABUSE hits on about 18% of incoming mail, while
NOPOSTMASTER hits on about 10%. Most of the false positives we see from
them can be eliminated
to create
one?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Kami Razvan
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:58 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Negative weighting filters to reduce
false positives
Hi;
Just to add my 2 cents to this discussion.
My experience
This is pretty interesting, but one
question What is your hold weight set to? It seems that you are assigning a huge
negative value for the first test, and much smaller for the other two, nay
insight as to how you came up with these values? We are running into some of the same problems
I myself have pondered why I am even running the
RFCI-noabuse and RFCI-nopostmaster test.
The NoAbuse misfired 23.6% of the
time.
The NoPostmaster misfired 12.7% of the
time.
Due to the underperformance, I weight each test 5
(hold at 200).
Thetest failures are who's who of ISP /
webmail
Darin Cox wrote:
Hi Darin -
We just started something I've been thinking about for a while:
Negative weight tests to offset specific test failures for well-
known
domains. For example, a large number of false positives we see are
from Earthlink, Mindspring, Sprint, Verizon, etc.
Well here
@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Negative weighting filters to reduce
false positives
This is pretty
interesting, but one question What is your hold weight set to? It seems that you are assigning a huge
negative value for the first test, and much
seen.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Scott
Fisher
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Negative weighting filters to reduce
false positives
I myself have pondered why I am even running the
RFCI-noabuse and RFCI
