spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henrik K <h...@hege.li>
Subject Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114
Date Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:34:29 GMT
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>>> ===============================
>>> HOSTKARMA_BL much better as URIBL
>>> ===============================
>>> SPAM%    HAM%    RANK RULE
>>> 68.3651% 0.2806% 0.79 URIBL_HOSTKARMA_BL *
>
> How do you check return values? There is a lot inside. If you 'just' use  
> the default response you get back any spam listed on a freemail platform  
> and so on. Is there no legitimate mail from those platforms? I tend to  
> say, yeah right. But for the fairly limited test set it could be the 
> case.

I tried reading this several times, but I'm still not sure what you are
getting at.

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/wtogami/20_bug_6212_hostkarma.cf?view=markup

Personally URIBL_HOSTKARMA_FRESH_2D is working great here with 0.99 S/O. But
as we know, hostkarma results might fluctuate from time to time given it's
nature.

Anyways, it's a fact that SA mass checks can't measure things accurately,
since not everyone uses the REUSE mass check feature. Checking weeks old
corpuses against live BLs isn't exactly good science. And things like
FRESH_2D are impossible to rate that way.


Mime
View raw message