> -----Original Message----- > From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de] > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 8:48 PM > > ...omissis... > > > > Not strictly a list of the top 200, but isn't this covered by the > more > > > extensive RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET dnsbl test? > > > > As you already pointed out, they are not exactly the same. > > More precisely: If that rule-set still would be generated, it would be > a > sub-set of bl.spamcop.net.
It is a ranked chunk of the top 200 spammers, not just a subset. It could even make sense to score a mail based on both 70_sc_top200 *and* bl.spamcop.net: this way the top 200's would earn some more points... bl.spamcop.net doesn't give any hint about a source rank in the SC db... > > The fact is that 70_sc_top200 seems stuck at Jan 2008 and the sare's > index > > page (http://www.rulesemporium.com/) says ninjas are busy working on > > something else. > > > > It seems to me 70_sc_top200 is an automatic rule, which > tautologically > > shouldn't involve any ninja at all in its updating. > > Well, it still would require some maintenance occasionally. > > > Anybody knows what happened to it? > > It died. And in fact, died *years* ago. As you can see two clicks away > from the link you posted, it became superfluous long ago and has been > deprecated. Just see the description of the rule-set: > > Do not use these if you use SpamCop.net's blacklist (Default with net > enabled on 2.63). This ruleset is created from that data. [...] > > > So, I'd say delete your copy of that stale file immediately. A stale file is a stale file. But is it that much stale the idea as a whole? I mean, the "top 200 spammers" one. > guenther Giampaolo > > > -- > char > *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4" > ; > main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? > c<<=1: > (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ > putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
