> Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote:
> >> That's as much detail as I'm going to go into here. But the result is
> >> that I have 720,000 IP addresses of virus infected computers and I'm
> >> fiultering about 1600 domains and I'm not getting any more than the
> >> normal few false positive complaints. And those are due to other
> >> unrelated mistakes that I'm still working on.
> >>
> >>
> > I've had it running for 26 hours so far. Its shown up on 79
> > out of 1519 messages processed. Of those, SA decided 482 of them were
> > spam. Eight were on the whitelist (Which didn't matter, the scores from
> > SA were 0 or negative ANYWAY). 68 were "BL", but the numbers were so
> > high from SA anyway, they were well over the limit. The rest were "BR"
> > and again the numbers were so high SA caught them on its own.
> >
> > <SHRUG>
> >
> > Tuc/TBOH
> >
> >
>
> So - no false positives?
>
No false anything really. SA had scored the others so low BEFORE
adding in your score that the "WH" didn't mean anything to the score.
Likewise, SA scored the "BL"/"BR" ones so high BEFORE adding in your
score that your score didn't mean anything.
So, to me, its basically just "tagging along" with the big
boys and every once and a while giving its .02 where the big boys
already came to a decision.
What I was hoping it would be was that "extra little bit" ,
that "hanging chad" shall we say, that pushed it over the line one
way or the other on a much greater percentage of processed messages.
This was on my personal mail server ONLY, my "production" one processes
around 57250 emails a day, of which 52000 are thrown out before
they are even checked (KNOWN spam just by the receiving email address),
3500 are identified by SA as spam (Some false positives), 250 are
passed as clean (Of which I'd say 25% are still spam), and the rest
aren't even run through SA before reaching the user due to the users
not being happy with the results of SA scans.
Tuc/TBOH
