I've also contacted the hound dogs over at the SPAM-L list on this. THey agree that playaudiomessages.com is on the evil side. I did some Deeeeep digging on them. It got uglier the harder I looked. Last report was Jan 30th to news.admin.net-abuse.sightings so they keep using it for spam.
I'll remove any FPs reported by RM. ;) --Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 3:14 AM > To: Jennifer Wheeler > Cc: 'Scott A Crosby'; 'Chris Santerre'; 'Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)' > Subject: Re[2]: [SAtalk] Re: Bigevil and thoughts.... > > > Hello Jennifer, > > Friday, January 30, 2004, 2:11:06 PM, you wrote: > CS>>> I received a report of an FP in bigevil. The domain was > CS>>> playaudiomessage.com. ... > >> > SC>> I think this is a mistake. Before, BigEvil had the high > road, not a > SC>> single domain in it had *ever* been reported as used in ham, > SC>> warranting a high score. With this change, thats no > longer true. ... > > SC>> I'm not saying that the domain should be forgotten, but that iit > SC>> should at least be in a different list. > > JW> ... So I got lazy and now just download his work and use that. I > JW> yank out the ones that I don't agree with. (few) ... > > I like BigEvil as an "absolutely no FP" file, but I don't > trust ANYTHING > that claims to be an "absolutely no FP" file. > > Before I install ANY file from anyone else, I run a masscheck > on it, to > see what it hits in my corpus. Results from BigEvil on Jan 12: > > > OVERALL SPAM HAM S/O SCORE NAME > 92212 74874 17338 0.812 0.00 0.00 (all messages) > 1985 1985 0 1.000 1.00 3.00 BigEvilList_66 > 1456 1456 0 1.000 1.00 3.00 BigEvilList_186 > ... > 323 322 1 0.987 0.96 3.00 BigEvilList_141 > 298 297 1 0.986 0.95 3.00 BigEvilList_9 > ... > > The ham it hit matched on: > # BigEvilList_141="r.4at1.com" BigEvilList_9="4at2.com" > > So before I took in that version of BigEvil, I modified those > two rules, > removing those specific domains. > > Likewise, William Stearns maintains a marvelous blacklist, > contributed to > by quite a few people. I pick up an updated copy once a > month. Before I > install that copy, though, I remove several blacklists that > flag definite > spam on other systems, but which match ham on mine. > > The strength of SA is that it can be configured and tuned for each and > every system, and often for each and every user. The weakness > is that if > you accept someone else's tuning blindly, that tuning may not > be suitable > for your system and your user. > > Your idea of having a second list, a SomewhatEvil.cf, is a > good one. How > do you recommend that second list be maintained and validated > and scored, > and who do you volunteer to do that work? > > Bob Menschel > > >
