On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <t...@ipinc.net> wrote:
> All very good points. I guess I'm a bit frustrated because njabl is > clearly not performing anymore, I noticed that a few years back, and > yet it's still in SA but better BL's are not. As you (and I) both > illustrated, certain things need to be in place before a BL is added > to SA. It's frustrating that mailspike hasn't done the last little bit > needed to "polish it up" (although it is > good that they are care enough about it to pay attention) and it's > also frustrating that the njabl owner has (apparently) gotten complacent > with it's non-performance. > It is a bit unfair to blame Mailspike for not having everything 100% ready. As I understand it, ANBREP began as their cleverly designed in-house spam solution. A while back they wanted it to be tested in nightly masscheck, but they didn't even have a public webpage at all. At my encouragement they slowly over the last year built the public infrastructure (Mailspike.net) and began preparing for public release. It isn't a top priority for them, and it seems one guy there is doing bit-by-bit in his spare time. We did not even formally propose inclusion to upstream yet. If these things aren't ready at the time when it is asked to be included then you can rightfully complain. Meanwhile please understand the situation. There might even be opportunities for you to help. However because the BL's are so important to the usefulness of SA I > would like to see SA change the blacklist configuration to something > a bit different. What I would like to see is a BL rules subdirectory > that contains rules for every known blacklist that is functioning, > no matter how poor they are, and then the main SA rules contain a > check into that subdirectory, looking for a config file in that > subdir. That config file is nothing more than a series of lines, one > for each BL. Each line is a name. If a BL name is present in the > config file (or uncommented) then the BL rule for that name is sucked into > SA, if the BL name isn't there, (or commented out) the rule or rules for > that BL are ignored. > > It is not that simple. The scores work together and are carefully balanced to maximize spam classification while minimizing the amount of ham False Positives. That means the scores assigned to one rule is depending on scores assigned to rules in order to work. Adding or removing significant rules like BL's have a major impact that can substantially tip the balance in either direction. They cannot be changed very often for this reason. Warren
