> -----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: > > > > > > 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-hunt demanding greater purity in URIBL > listings. If I wanted to do that, I'd do it on the uribl and > surbl lists. > > I *AM* trying to get people to think about the STRUCTURE OF > THE RULES and how they are scored in SpamAssassin. The > problem is nobody's even willing to discuss that end of > things without miles of proof that a problem exists. > > 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 will continue > to happen, and thus the spammassassin rules need to be > structured accordingly. >
You've proven a problem of obscure FPs. We (surbl/uribl) both maintain internal whitelists. They are not fully encapsulating of every ham domain out there, but they are pretty god damn big and remove nearly all possibilities of causing what I would call substantial "damage". Your examples (to this point) are of very narrow scope. I have not heard anyone else on SA-users ever complain of rampant URIBL only FPs.. and these people will normally let you know if it exists. > So can we put all the arguments about who's URIBL is bigger > than who's to rest and start looking at the spamassassin end > of the problem? I'm not sure where you got this, but I've never said anything of the sorts. I've also never heard Jeff say anything of the sort. We have different list structure, different listing philosophies, and different sources.... but we have a similar intrest and many times reach the same final result. > Because I really don't give a damn about who made what > mistakes and who makes more mistakes. > > Simple fact. Mistakes get made. Sometimes multiple mistakes > coincide with each other. For some reason, many people on > this list seem to refuse to accept that can happen. So I've > had to make a lot of proof it can happen. Some folks have > taken that as criticism of the URIBLs affected. It's not, > it's just facts to support the obvious. > IMHO, your "proof" has been small and insignificant to this point. > I *like* both surbl.org and uribl.com. I thimk they're great. > So will you guys quit painting me as attacking the URIBLS > because I point out some problems with how SA implements > checking them? > > Can we address the real question here: > > 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 when the tagging threshold > is +5. However, they do hurt SA when overlapping mistakes happen. > > If this is the issue that you are really trying to address, it would be better done on the dev list... Because I think the users list (in general) is happy with the current implementation. If they are not, I guess now is the time to speak up. I am going to bow out of this thread now as I have spent far more time on it than it warrants. I appreciate your feedback to uribl, and welcome your delist requests for any FPs you come across. In the end, we are all working towards a common goal. Thanks, Dallas
