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 deal of power in SpamAssassin scoring.
I'm not really complaining about uribl.com, I'm complaining about URIBLs
as a whole. That's both uribl.com and surbl. Whenever I use the term
URIBL in all caps, I mean all URI dns-based blacklists. If you prefer,
I'll retract my uribl.com example, and point out that less than an hour
later, I got a ws.surbl.org FP.
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 seem to not
take those differences into account.
Did you see Theo's test data from yesterday?
Yes. I was referring lumping URIBL.com with SURBL.org mostly.
35.418 41.1930 0.0000 1.000 0.90 0.00 URIBL_JP_SURBL
34.665 40.3177 0.0000 1.000 0.88 0.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL
26.069 30.3204 0.0000 1.000 0.80 0.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL
28.024 32.5464 0.2915 0.991 0.61 0.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL
48.113 55.7492 1.2873 0.977 0.55 0.00 URIBL_BLACK
0.293 0.3406 0.0000 1.000 0.47 0.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL
0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.42 0.00 URIBL_RED
0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.42 0.01 T_URIBL_XS_SURBL
37.539 42.4763 7.2626 0.854 0.38 0.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL
0.548 0.3446 1.7974 0.161 0.03 0.00 URIBL_GREY
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.
Heh, yeah...
On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit from other
lists or are they all separately maintained?
It may be that the right way to use these lists for some circumstances
is to have meta rules that add points to lowered scores when more than
two and more than three BLs all hit together.
{^_^}
