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
