[SURBL-Discuss] Recent SpamAssassin mass check results

[Kevin A. McGrail]

Very cool!  I was very impressed when they showed me the automated testing 
systems they've got running for the SA project.  However, the test results 
do not agree always with my own tests (due to corpus data not the the 
algorithm).  I'm going to try and work with Theo sometime very soon to get 
my R&D server running the nightly checks because I want to incorporate my 
corpus of ham/spam as well.  I'm also hoping that by doing this when I 
refine a rule, I can visually see the email that had a FP.  The hardest part 
I'm having right now is using the data to do refinement but the privacy 
issues are obviously paramount.

Regards,
KAM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Chan" <jeffc at surbl.org>
To: "SURBL Discuss" <discuss at lists.surbl.org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 11:56 AM
Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Recent SpamAssassin mass check results


> FWIW Here are last Saturday's SA mass check results, courtesy of
> Theo:
>
>  http://www.surbl.org/news.html
>
>  MSECS    SPAM%     HAM%     S/O    RANK   SCORE  NAME
>      0   181939    52229    0.777   0.00    0.00  (all messages)
> 0.00000  77.6959  22.3041    0.777   0.00    0.00  (all messages as %)
> 22.377  28.8009   0.0000    1.000   1.00    0.00  URIBL_SC_SURBL
> 26.604  34.2378   0.0134    1.000   1.00    0.00  URIBL_WS_SURBL
> 24.854  31.9854   0.0115    1.000   1.00    0.00  URIBL_JP_SURBL
> 12.423  15.9889   0.0000    1.000   0.98    0.00  URIBL_AB_SURBL
> 23.278  29.9463   0.0479    0.998   0.96    0.00  URIBL_OB_SURBL
>  0.236   0.3028   0.0038    0.988   0.67    0.00  URIBL_PH_SURBL
> 15.377  19.7803   0.0383    0.998   0.95    0.00  URIBL_SBL
> 29.707  38.1606   0.2585    0.993   0.85    0.00  URIBL_BLACK
>  0.020   0.0264   0.0000    1.000   0.50    0.00  URIBL_RED
>  0.515   0.4353   0.7946    0.354   0.45    0.00  URIBL_GREY
>
> Of particular relevance are the low false positives of some of
> the SURBL lists such as SC, AB and PH as shown in the low HAM%
> numbers. (Note that PH is important to use and score highly in
> order to detect phishes. It doesn't detect a large percentage of
> spams, but it likely detects many phishes.) The last three are
> presumably uribl.com lists.
>
> FPs on OB remain too high IMO, but we're continually working to
> try to improve both the FN and FP rates.
>
> Jeff C.
> --
> Don't harm innocent bystanders.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.surbl.org
> http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>