spamassassin-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org
Subject [Bug 6534] Evaluate UCEPROTECT
Date Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:38:07 GMT
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6534

--- Comment #9 from Warren Togami <wtogami@gmail.com> 2011-03-01 14:37:59 EST ---
I've operated my entire anti-spam career largely ignoring the "authorities",
instead attempting to use measurement and statistics to find out for myself. 
Whatever authority can say whatever they want about blacklist standards but
what matters most is how useful and safe a blacklist is as measured.

That being said...

http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110226-r1074804-n
UCEPROTECT_L1 is one of the worst performing of the DNSBL's were currently
testing.

http://www.spamtips.org/2011/01/dnsbl-safety-report-1232011.html
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110226-r1074804-n/T_RCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT_L1/detail
It has very high overlaps with MSPIKE_BL at 80%, PSBL at 73% and HOSTKARMA_BL
at 89%.  Yet despite its similarities with those high safety rated blacklists,
2% of our ham corpus from the past week hit in UCEPROTECT_L1, and this has been
pretty consistent for the previous four weeks.

Like the ampr.org fellow above who suggested typo broken Spamassassin rules
containing UCEPROTECT, I'm afraid much anti-spam advice out there is made
without adequate testing and even cursory examination of the statistics.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

Mime
View raw message