On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:38:42PM +0000, 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 list(s) hit (2+ = 637701)
281255 3 SURBL list(s) hit (3+ = 447906)
136964 4 SURBL list(s) hit (4+ = 166651)
29685 5 SURBL list(s) hit (5+ = 29687)
2 6 SURBL list(s) hit (6+ = 2)
The set1 ham logs:
477629 total messages
1023 messages hit SURBL
992 1 SURBL list(s) hit (1+ = 1023)
23 2 SURBL list(s) hit (2+ = 31)
5 3 SURBL list(s) hit (3+ = 8)
3 4 SURBL list(s) hit (4+ = 3)
0 5 SURBL list(s) hit (5+ = 0)
0 6 SURBL list(s) hit (6+ = 0)
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%).
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Winny and I lived in a house that ran on static electricity...
If you wanted to run the blender, you had to rub balloons on your
head... if you wanted to cook, you had to pull off a sweater real quick...
-- Steven Wright
pgptJCSaZiRLm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
