On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 06:53 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2006, 12:39:31 PM, Theo Dinter wrote:
>
> > Just for some info... I went through the set1 spam logs for 3.1 score
> > generation.
>
> > 1112804 total messages
> > 776108 messages hit SURBL
> > 138407 1 SURBL list(s)
On Monday, February 20, 2006, 12:39:31 PM, Theo Dinter wrote:
> Just for some info... I went through the set1 spam logs for 3.1 score
> generation.
> 1112804 total messages
> 776108 messages hit SURBL
> 138407 1 SURBL list(s) hit (1+ = 776108)
> 189795 2 SURBL list(s) hit (2+ = 637701)
> 281
Hi!
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:38:42PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
yes, I'm a little worried about that, too.
So from these results, the FP rate is very low for SURBL (0.21%), and
while there is a ton of overlap for spam (57.3%), there's very little
for ham (0.01%).
aha, that's very inte
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:38:42PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
> > yes, I'm a little worried about that, too.
> So from these results, the FP rate is very low for SURBL (0.21%), and
> while there is a ton of overlap for spam (57.3%), there's very little
> for ham (0.01%).
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:38:42PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
> yes, I'm a little worried about that, too.
Just for some info... I went through the set1 spam logs for 3.1 score
generation.
1112804 total messages
776108 messages hit SURBL
138407 1 SURBL list(s) hit (1+ = 776108)
189795 2 SURBL
Chris Thielen writes:
> Now for a scoring question: isn't the perceptron supposed to factor out
> decisively overlapping rules? If so, why the enormously high scores for
> all the different uribls? From my stats, I get 50% of spam that hits
> SURBL hitting 4 or 5 of the SURBL lists. Shouldn't t
I'm also catching up on this thread and wasn't sure where to reply so
I'll make my observations here.
Matt, I think you have a legitimate concern. I think I can sum up the
points of view as follows:
1. For grey URIs (perhaps scott's, for example) and/or FPs due to
non-spam URIs being listed, a
Title: RE: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
I'm still catching up on this thread, but I have some points:
1) Matt's taking a beating, and he shouldn't be. I see his concerns. I might not agree, but he has legitimate reasons for bringing it up, and only serves to help all of u
Hi!
This is a potential if a list will add a site on the basis of ONE
spam report. When it takes ten or twenty or more spam reports then
sites will get listed. Your Scotts example is an example of how a
large number of people would be likely to consider it to be spam
and complain. Upon receiving
Hi!
I have two things related to this:
1- if the lists are indeed separate (ie: different sources, etc,)
then having multiple rules makes sense.
They're about 95% separate.. They're all separately maintained, and have
a lot of different approaches to making sure a listing is valid.
I don't
On Sunday, February 19, 2006, 8:07:30 PM, Theo Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 07:19:28PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> > 37.539 42.4763 7.26260.854 0.380.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL
>>
>> Should the ham hit rate of WS really be 7%? That seems rather
>> high. May we ask you to please d
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 07:19:28PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
> > 37.539 42.4763 7.26260.854 0.380.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL
>
> Should the ham hit rate of WS really be 7%? That seems rather
> high. May we ask you to please double check that result?
I was waiting for someone to ask me about
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:07:48 PM, Theo Dinter wrote:
I was going to tell you that the stats were real-time, but that's only
true for the SURBL rules. URIBL hits aren't being reused during the
weekly runs since 3.1 doesn't have those rules.
So
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
This is a potential if a list will add a site on the basis of ONE
spam report. When it takes ten or twenty or more spam reports then
sites will get listed. Your Scotts example is an example of how a
large number of people would be likely to
On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:07:48 PM, Theo Dinter wrote:
> I was going to tell you that the stats were real-time, but that's only
> true for the SURBL rules. URIBL hits aren't being reused during the
> weekly runs since 3.1 doesn't have those rules.
> So I did a small tweek and generated my
jdow wrote:
>
> This is a potential if a list will add a site on the basis of ONE
> spam report. When it takes ten or twenty or more spam reports then
> sites will get listed. Your Scotts example is an example of how a
> large number of people would be likely to consider it to be spam
> and complai
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:20:05AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
How can we keep the spam tagged, and try to mitigate the FPs by keeping
additive scores for multiple URIBLs more moderate? +20 worth of URIBL
hits is fine on spam, but
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:20:05AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
How can we keep the spam tagged, and try to mitigate the FPs by keeping
additive scores for multiple URIBLs more moderate? +20 worth of URIBL
hits is fine on spam, but astronomically high scor
Hi!
And again, it's not the over-lap in-and-of-itself that's a problem. It's
when the overlap matches nonspam that problems occur. I don't have any
nonspam samples onhand with surbl overlap. Only surbl/uribl overlap.
We get reports allmost daily, most of them are only listed in one
single lis
Hi!
Yes, but the frequency of overlap in nonspam that I'm seeing at my site
is disturbing.
I've posted examples of this, and they keep getting ignored.
You posted overlap in URIBL and SURBL, thats the same as posting overlap
inside Spamcop and Spamhaus...
This IS a real problem. I am not s
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:20:05AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> >> How can we keep the spam tagged, and try to mitigate the FPs by keeping
> >> additive scores for multiple URIBLs more moderate? +20 worth of URIBL
> >> hits is fine on spam, but astronomically high scores don't really help
> >> SA w
Jeff Chan wrote:
> It depends on the rate of FPs. If they are relatively rare, and
> it seems they are, then delists may be an appropriate or at least
> workable solution.
I'd agree it's workable, but I think we can do better. And without
hurting the spam hit rates.
Right now SA's rule structure
On Saturday, February 18, 2006, 10:27:23 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> I've proven a problem exists.. Submitting delist requests will NOT work
> as a sole fix it because it's just going to happen again. and again, and
> again. Yes, delists are a good thing. But we need to realize that human
> error wil
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 06:27
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Dallas Engelken wrote:
> >
> >
&g
Dallas Engelken wrote:
>
>
> So please... put this f'ing thread to bed and send a delist request.
>
Yes, but dallas.. this thread IS NOT about how to keep the URIBLs
cleaner. I really don't care how it got there. I understand that
mistakes happen. No big deal. I'm not trying to start a witch-hun
On Saturday, February 18, 2006, 6:07:09 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> jdow wrote:
>>
>>> rbl/uribl overlap.
>>
>> Matt, I think your worry about overlap is faulty. If the lists all
>> fed off one common database it would be a worry. Then the correlation
>> would be a symptom of the system not working.
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 02:07
> To: jdow
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> jdow wrote:
> >
> >> rbl/uribl overlap.
jdow wrote:
> From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> But why do they so commonly overlap in NONSPAM too? And why does nobody
>> care? Why does everyone insist the problem doesn't exist in spite of
>> examples to the contrary.
>
> So what do you propose doing about it? How do you propose AVOI
jdow wrote:
>
>> rbl/uribl overlap.
>
> Matt, I think your worry about overlap is faulty. If the lists all
> fed off one common database it would be a worry. Then the correlation
> would be a symptom of the system not working. If they all work off
> more or less individual captures and submissions
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2006, 2:36:29 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
While multi-listing is somewhat common in RBLs, it's the vast majority
of cases in URIBLs. Over 50% of my mail that hits any surbl.org lists
hits 3 or more of them.
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>
>>
>> That sample was 100% spam. I was not trying to point out FP rate
>> problems, merely that overlap is in fact VERY common on surbl.
>>
>> And again, it's not the over-lap in-and-of-itself that's a problem. It's
>> when the overlap matches nonspam that problems occur
Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2006, 2:36:29 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> While multi-listing is somewhat common in RBLs, it's the vast majority
>> of cases in URIBLs. Over 50% of my mail that hits any surbl.org lists
>> hits 3 or more of them.
>>
>
> And how many of those are
On Saturday, February 18, 2006, 2:36:29 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> While multi-listing is somewhat common in RBLs, it's the vast majority
> of cases in URIBLs. Over 50% of my mail that hits any surbl.org lists
> hits 3 or more of them.
And how many of those are spams versus hams?
Jeff C.
--
Jeff
Hi!
The conventional RBLS all have much lower scores than the URIBLs. It
takes the top 5 RBLs to match the score of the top 3 surbl.org lists.
For this reason Multi-listing in multiple RBLs rarely causes as hefty a
score problem as URIBLs. I'd be very happy if the URIBL scores were more
similar
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>
> Ther eis really LOW feed on the webforms. And indeed, all is manually
> checked there so i dont see a the point. To take the discussion
> elewhere, why not rescore Spamcop, Spamhaus ect ect ect also. I also
> see zombie stuff appearing in more then 1 list.
Going *ALL*
Hi!
The FP rates on SC and JP are consistently very low across the
scores that have been posted by many people. OB and WS have
higher FP rates, but they don't tend to have a lot of FPs in
common. We review our data for FPs every day.
Unless someone can provide some examples of FPs on multiple
Hi!
They use different datasources and no cross links between them. If there
is a real nasty one we could/would talk about it on the private list but
thats really sporadic.
Untrue. AB and SC use a common data source, spamcop reports. However, each has
it's own processing/listing criteria and
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 5:34:57 PM, Matthew Eerde wrote:
> It's not particularly important how many URLs the lists have in
> common. What is important is how many *false positives* the
> lists have in common... or more to the point, whether a given "good" URL
> is more likely to be on (say)
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 4:04:42 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> I consider that "highly similar" for JP, SC, AB, OB and WS.
As similar as 30 and 40, and 0, .3 and 7 are, I suppose.
>>
>>> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit fr
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 3:36:07 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit from other
> lists or are they all separately maintained?
The different SURBL lists are all separately maintained. Only AB
and SC share a data source, namely SpamCop user
Matt Kettler wrote:
>>> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit
>>> from other lists or are they all separately maintained?
>>
>> They use different datasources and no cross links between them. If
>> there is a real nasty one we could/would talk about it on the
>> private
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 00:05
> To: Raymond Dijkxhoorn
> Cc: jdow; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> >
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Hi!
>>>
I consider that "highly similar" for JP, SC, AB, OB and WS.
>>>
>>> As similar as 30 and 40, and 0, .3 and 7 are, I suppose.
>
>> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit from
>> other
>> lists or are they all separately maintained?
Chris Santerre a écrit :
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:28 PM
>>To: jdow
>>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>>
>
> SNI
Hi!
0.293 0.3406 0.1.000 0.470.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL
0.000 0. 0.0.500 0.420.00 URIBL_RED
0.000 0. 0.0.500 0.420.01 T_URIBL_XS_SURBL
37.539 42.4763 7.26260.854 0.380.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL
0.548 0.3446 1.79740.
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 7:19:50 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:13:36 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
I'm only presenting evidence of accuracy problems in relation to why the
URIBLs collectively wield a great dea
> -Original Message-
> From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 21:34
> To: Dallas L. Engelken
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> &g
Matt Kettler wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
The result will be no URIBL only FPs. OTOH, you may end up with a
shit-ton of people bitching about spam accuracy dropping in stock 3.2
installs if you make these changes.
I'm not sure it'd be *that* bad.
A grep of my
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 18:47
> To: Matt Kettler
> Cc: Jeff Chan; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> >
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
>> The result will be no URIBL only FPs. OTOH, you may end up with a
>> shit-ton of people bitching about spam accuracy dropping in stock 3.2
>> installs if you make these changes.
>
> I'm not sure it'd be *that* bad.
>
> A grep of my logs
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
The result will be no URIBL only FPs. OTOH, you may end up with a
shit-ton of people bitching about spam accuracy dropping in stock 3.2
installs if you make these changes.
I'm not sure it'd be *that* bad.
A grep of my logs from this wee
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
The result will be no URIBL only FPs. OTOH, you may end up with a
shit-ton of people bitching about spam accuracy dropping in stock 3.2
installs if you make these changes.
I'm not sure it'd be *that* bad.
A grep of my logs from this week shows that 1.1% of my spam
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>
>> There may be some value in not lumping together URIBL.com and
>> SURBL.org lists. As you can see the performance of the lists are
>> different, and the way they're created is different too. That
>> makes it harder for us to respond to comments that s
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 05:14
> To: Dallas L. Engelken
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> >> ---
Title: RE: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
> -Original Message-
> From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:28 PM
> To: jdow
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
SNIP
>
>
Matt Kettler wrote:
> I'll even re-quote myself:
>> I personally would like to see some statistics, but at this point, we
>> don't have any test data on this so we're arguing your theory vs mine.
> And your quote that I was counter-pointing:
>> As you can see the performance of the lists are dif
jdow a écrit :
> Rune, there are two canonical means of solving that petty issue. If
> there is someone likely to send you such a message white list her. Or
> simply munge the name, for example http://uri-here-M/uri/.
>
I would like to whitelist all legitimate senders. unfortunately, I don't
have
Jeff Chan wrote:
>
>> I don't see the difference from the recent results posted by Theo.
>>
>
> That's like saying two different RBLs that hit a similar
> percentage of spams must therefore have the same policies, even
> when they may have no data in common. It's not a conclusion that
> can b
On Friday, February 17, 2006, 7:19:50 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:13:36 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>
>>> I'm only presenting evidence of accuracy problems in relation to why the
>>> URIBLs collectively wield a great deal of power in SpamAssassin
Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:13:36 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> I'm only presenting evidence of accuracy problems in relation to why the
>> URIBLs collectively wield a great deal of power in SpamAssassin scoring.
>> I'm not really complaining about uribl.com, I'm complain
On Thursday 16 February 2006 21:05, jdow wrote:
> ...
>> The URL-lists are made in a different manner.
>>
>> Take for example - a fully legit message from one friend to another
>> that contains something like this:
>>
>>
>> Hi $name, god I'm getting tired of all the spam we're receiving about
>> ht
Dallas Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 01:09
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:42:19PM -, Dallas Engelken wrote:
So.. I have
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 22:50
To: Chris Santerre
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 9:13:36 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> I'm only presenting evidence of accuracy problems in relation to why the
> URIBLs collectively wield a great deal of power in SpamAssassin scoring.
> I'm not really complaining about uribl.com, I'm complaining about URIBLs
> as a who
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 22:50
>> To: Chris Santerre
>> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:50:45AM -, Dallas Engelken wrote:
> SPAM% is crap when it comes to ruleqa on uribls. Spammers rotate domains
> daily. We expire dead domains daily. I guess we could keep all the bloat
> around to pump our numbers ;) If you had a daily rotated corpus, we'd own
> it
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 22:50
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Chris Santerre wrote:
> > Matt Kettler w
> -Original Message-
> From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 01:09
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:42:19PM -, Dallas Engelken wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:42:19PM -, Dallas Engelken wrote:
> So.. I have moved partypoker.com to grey for now. I'll let you and Theo
> thumb wrestle over it :)
Warning: I have big hands. ;)
I'm happy to show samples of mails to certain folks, btw. There are several
personal and spamtrap e
Dallas Engelken wrote:
If "all of your requests" are referring to URIBL.COM, I think you are over
exaggerating.
I could have sworn that it was URIBL.COM that I've submitted a number of
domains to. Apparently I haven't. My apologies.
Chris Santerre wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> My FPs fall into two categories:
>>
>> 1) URIs that would likely never appear outside of a specialty
>> newsletter. I've
>> had lots of hits on things like:
>> -Authors of programmer's tools
>> -producers of electronic parts
>> -producers of embedded
> -Original Message-
> From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 21:51
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
> Matt Kettler wrote:
> > List Mail User wrote:
>
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
And yet it's in URIBL's blacklist. (I've already requested a delist)
Do they actually delist domains by request? I've long ago given up
trying after having all of my requests rejected.
Yes.
Daryl, did we REJECT your requests? Cant imagine, really. We have a
Hi!
And yet it's in URIBL's blacklist. (I've already requested a delist)
Do they actually delist domains by request? I've long ago given up trying
after having all of my requests rejected.
Yes.
Daryl, did we REJECT your requests? Cant imagine, really. We have a very
active team resolving
Matt Kettler wrote:
List Mail User wrote:
My FPs fall into two categories:
Like Matt, I've had similar electronics newsletters trigger on
apparently non-spammed domains.
I've also had a number of users complain about FPs on emails from a
number of online poker sites.
And yet it's in
Title: RE: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:36 PM
> To: List Mail User
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scor
List Mail User wrote:
.
> Again, as far as I can tell, once a domain hits SURBL [sc], the chances of a
> FP are very low, but you handle so much more mail than I do, you are likely to
> see those rare FPs, and I am not. There have been a very few FPs I have seen
> where a legitimate "bulk mailer"
From: "Rune Kristian Viken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thursday 16 February 2006 02:22, Bill Landry wrote:
This makes me wonder if SA wouldn't be better off having some kind of
meta rules that simply count how many URIBLs the message is listed in, or
at least some kind of score-limiting feedback o
Hi!
either SpamCop or SURBL [sc], seems fairly difficult to get on the [ab] list
os AbuseButler itself, and you'd have to spam Joe Wein or Raymond to make
the SURBL [jp] list. I do have to admit that for all of my "extra" net tests,
Uhm you have to spam one of the roughly 18.000 domains we ar
>...
>Yes, but Paul, quoting real spam domain's isn't the real problem here.
>
>The problem is the same thing happens to nonspam domains. In the past month
>it's
>happened to me TWICE that a nonspam domain got misreported to two different
>URIBLs.
>
>One of them, as mentioned before, is an update
List Mail User wrote:
> After all this arguing about whether a URI can be over-weighted (or
> if a group of related lists are), on one of my local servers I tested the
> short message (with the URL "intact") with arbitray innocuous headers:
>
> ---
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Take for example this ONE uri that was posted to the list:
> checpri *MUNGED*.com
>
> This is currently listed in SC, JP, and AB on SURBL.
> score URIBL_AB_SURBL 0 3.306 0 3.812
> score URIBL_JP_SURBL 0 3.360 0 4.087
> scor
After all this arguing about whether a URI can be over-weighted (or
if a group of related lists are), on one of my local servers I tested the
short message (with the URL "intact") with arbitray innocuous headers:
Chris Santerre wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:27 PM
> > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> > Subject: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
> >
> >
> > All this hubub about not filtering the list has made
Title: RE: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:27 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
>
> All this hubub
On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 4:59:08 AM, Rune Viken wrote:
> The URL-lists are made in a different manner.
> Take for example - a fully legit message from one friend to another that
> contains something like this:
> :::
> Hi $name, god I'm getting tired of all the spam we're receiving about
On Thursday 16 February 2006 02:22, Bill Landry wrote:
>> This makes me wonder if SA wouldn't be better off having some kind of
>> meta rules that simply count how many URIBLs the message is listed in, or
>> at least some kind of score-limiting feedback on multiple hits. This
>> would allow lists
On Wednesday, February 15, 2006, 7:00:33 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> 2) diversity of criteria:
> SURBL - all lists have nearly identical listing criteria, except ph. All but
> PH
> are "spotted in spam, doesn't appear to have legit use" and nothing more. JP,
> AB, SC, WS and OB are all effectively t
Bill Landry wrote:
>>>
>>> So, Matt, why is this any different than an IP addresses that gets
>>> listed in many different RBLs and reported by SA?
>>
>> Read the middle of my message, I already pointed that out as being
>> different.
>
> I read the middle of your message, still don't see the dif
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bill Landry wrote:
Original Message - From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This makes me wonder if SA wouldn't be better off having some kind of
meta rules
that simply count how many URIBLs the message is list
Bill Landry wrote:
> Original Message - From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> This makes me wonder if SA wouldn't be better off having some kind of
>> meta rules
>> that simply count how many URIBLs the message is listed in, or at
>> least some
>> kind of score-limiting feedback o
Original Message -
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This makes me wonder if SA wouldn't be better off having some kind of meta
rules
that simply count how many URIBLs the message is listed in, or at least
some
kind of score-limiting feedback on multiple hits. This would allow
92 matches
Mail list logo
