Discuss September 2004

discuss@lists.surbl.org

62 participants
229 discussions

Ham corpora needed
by Jeff Chan 06 Sep '04

06 Sep '04

In order to reduce false positives in the SURBL data, we would like to have access to ham corpora. Does anyone know of any public ham copora, including just the URI domain names from the hams? Or is there anyone who would be willing to run our URI domain lists against their ham? Does anyone know if messages from the Enron corpus have been categorized for ham and spam? http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~enron/ Thanks in advance for any suggestions, comments, thoughts.... Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

3 12

whitelisted x10.com
by Jeff Chan 06 Sep '04

06 Sep '04

I've whitelisted x10.com. They are a frequent FP since they "advertise" so much to their own customers. I'm surprised it was not whitelisted earlier. x10.com is probably significant contributor to the ham scores. Jeff C.

1 0

Setting SpamAssassin scores for SURBL lists
by Jeff Chan 05 Sep '04

05 Sep '04

Eric Kolve and I were looking at how to best set the default SpamCopURI scores for the various SURBL lists and at first we tried looking at the SpamAssassin 3.0 perceptron-generated scores as a possible guide: > http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/rules/50_scores.cf > > # The following block of scores were generated using the mass-checking > # scripts, and a perceptron to determine the optimum scores which > # resulted in minimum false positives or negatives. The scores are > # weighted to produce roughly 1 false positive in 2500 non-spam messages > # using the default threshold of 5.0. > score URIBL_AB_SURBL 0 2.007 0 0.417 > score URIBL_OB_SURBL 0 1.996 0 3.213 > score URIBL_PH_SURBL 0 0.839 0 2.000 > score URIBL_SC_SURBL 0 3.897 0 4.263 > score URIBL_WS_SURBL 0 0.539 0 1.462 I was trying to figure out what the different score columns meant, to which Theo Van Dinter cited: > $ perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf > [...] > If four valid scores are listed, then the score that is used > depends on how SpamAssassin is being used. The first score is used > when both Bayes and network tests are disabled (score set 0). The > second score is used when Bayes is disabled, but network tests are > enabled (score set 1). The third score is used when Bayes is > enabled and network tests are disabled (score set 2). The fourth > score is used when Bayes is enabled and network tests are enabled > (score set 3). We wondered if we could somehow use those scores with SpamCopURI and were unable to come up with a good answer. Theo suggested looking at Spam versus ham rates as a good way to set scores, to which I mentioned: > We have these test results from Justin from 25 June: > > OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME > 121405 22516 98889 0.185 0.00 0.00 (all messages) > 100.000 18.5462 81.4538 0.185 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) > 13.453 70.3766 0.4925 0.993 1.00 1.00 SURBL_WS > 3.807 20.3811 0.0334 0.998 0.50 1.00 SURBL_SC > 2.650 14.2565 0.0071 1.000 0.50 1.00 SURBL_AB > 0.019 0.0933 0.0020 0.979 0.50 1.00 SURBL_PH > 12.624 67.6275 0.1001 0.999 0.50 1.00 SURBL_OB > > which shows a pretty high FP rate for WS, less for the others. > Do you happen to have access to any more recent corpus check data > like this? Could be useful to have another snapshot for a more > complete picture. Which was followed up with more data and discussion: > On Saturday, September 4, 2004, 10:13:11 PM, Theo Dinter wrote: >> high spam + low ham is good from an FP standpoint, but having a "significant" >> (for your definition thereof) ham hitrate means the score shouldn't be too >> high. My handwaving scores would be something like: [Theo's wild guess scores for Justin's June data: -- Jeff C.] >> WS 1.2 >> SC 2.5 >> AB 3.5 >> OB 1.8 Theo then gave some of his own stats on a couple different corpora: >> OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME >> 416072 365031 51041 0.877 0.00 0.00 (all messages) >> 100.000 87.7327 12.2673 0.877 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) >> set1 30.923 35.2466 0.0000 1.000 0.99 0.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL >> set1 72.231 82.3273 0.0274 1.000 0.98 1.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL >> set1 19.375 22.0847 0.0000 1.000 0.98 1.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL >> set1 74.883 85.2939 0.4310 0.995 0.74 0.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL >> set1 0.001 0.0000 0.0059 0.000 0.48 0.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL > >> OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME >> 119215 67094 52121 0.563 0.00 0.00 (all messages) >> 100.000 56.2798 43.7202 0.563 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) >> set3 39.217 69.6605 0.0288 1.000 0.98 1.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL >> set3 10.340 18.3727 0.0000 1.000 0.97 0.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL >> set3 5.998 10.6582 0.0000 1.000 0.94 1.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL >> set3 42.730 75.5522 0.4797 0.994 0.73 0.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL >> set3 0.008 0.0089 0.0058 0.608 0.49 0.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL > >> so for these results, I'd probably do something like: > >> WS 1.3 >> SC 4.0 >> AB 3.0 >> OB 2.2 > >> since the hit rates and S/O are a bit higher for me, related to the fact I ran >> more spam through than Justin did. To which I added: > Those final scores look like an excellent fit to the data to me. and: > Also while the PH spam hit rate [from Justin's stats] is low, > the data is of hand checked phishing scams, which deserve to be > blocked due to their potential danger and damage. > > Therefore I would tend to give PH a medium-high score like > 3 to 5. So we'll probably adjust the default scores on SpamCopURI to something like: WS 1.3 SC 4.0 AB 3.0 OB 2.2 PH 4.5 and we recommend SpamCopURI users do likewise. Please be sure to use the latest version of SpamCopURI with multi.surbl.org: http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamcopuri/ http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI/ One thing stood out for me is that the FP rate (ham%) for ws.surbl.org is way too high at about 0.45 to 0.5% across multiple corpora. That FP rate needs to be reduced for WS to be more fully useful. I think Chris or maybe Raymond suggested that they had a way to reduce FPs in WS further. If so, ***please*** try to apply it. We need to get the FPs to be much less than 0.5%. The other lists have FP rates 5 to 50 times lower. Basically the higher the FP rate, the less useful a list is. Does anyone have other corpus stats to share, in particular FP rates? Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

3 7

Fwd: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] checking plain domains in message bodies against SURBLs reportedly effective
by Jeff Chan 05 Sep '04

05 Sep '04

This is a forwarded message From: Theo Van Dinter <felicity(a)kluge.net> To: SURBL Discussion list <discuss(a)lists.surbl.org>, SpamAssassin Developers <spamassassin-dev(a)incubator.apache.org> Date: Saturday, September 4, 2004, 10:36:53 AM Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] checking plain domains in message bodies against SURBLs reportedly effective ===8<==============Original message text=============== On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:45:44AM -0600, Ryan Thompson wrote: > Yep. Good idea, overall. There are a few gotchas: > > TLD extensions sometimes map file extensions. We might have to whitelist > command.com, and the entire country of Poland. :-) > > Since the domain is in plain text and doesn't contain a protocol or > subdomain (i.e., 'www'), I haven't yet seen a mail client that will > display it as a clickable URL. This is generally the tact we're taking in SpamAssassin -- if a general MUA doesn't display it as a link, then we don't consider it an URL. Another issue for the generic domains thing is performance -- lots of messages have lots of things like could potentially look like a domain, and querying for them all adds a bit of a load on the client and the server. For instance: /\b([a-zA-Z0-9_.-]{1,256}\.[a-zA-Z]{2,6})\b/ in theory (I haven't tested it), will grab anything that looks like a generic domain name in text. If you check that list against a list of valid TLDs, you'd probably end up with a decent list, but you'd hit the top issue quoted above where "Go take a look at command.com" isn't clear if it's an URL or a filename. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Brevity is the soul of lingerie." - Dorothy Parker ===8<===========End of original message text===========

1 0

[SURBL-Discuss] checking plain domains in message bodies against SURBLs reportedly effective
by Jeff Chan 04 Sep '04

04 Sep '04

Randy Brukardt of rrsoftware.com mentioned that checking plain domains occurring in message bodies against SURBLs was pretty productive. (E.g., look for domain.com in addition to www.domain.com or http://www.domain.com). Perhaps this could be something interesting to at least try experimentally or to think about. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

3 5

"safelists"
by Joe Wein 04 Sep '04

04 Sep '04

Today I processed a pile of 11,000 spams donated by Raymond, as I'm gradually gearing up for large-scale spamtrap processing. I ended up with many most obvious spam domains, but an even bigger pile of domains that aren't quite as suspicious. Many are from last year and the name server is not listed by SBL. I don't want to add any grey domains to a black pile. While investigating many of them to determine if they deserved listing, I repeatedly came across the term "safelist". They seem to be some kind of opt-in lists. What is the term supposed to mean exactly? Joe -- http://www.joewein.de/sw/jwSpamSpy/

2 1

Re: [SURBL-Announce] PROBLEM: WS.SURBL.ORG frozen
by Jeff Chan 04 Sep '04

04 Sep '04

On Friday, September 3, 2004, 3:10:29 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: > Currently we are running with a somehow frozen ws.surbl.org list. We are > experiencing hardware trouble with one of the SURBL machines. New updates > will be processed, but most likely activated after we restore full > functionality. > The main SURBL site is not afffected, its only related to the WS updates. > We are working hard to get the processing box back online. We made a temporary workaround to get updates from Raymond and others directly into ws.surbl.org until the other server comes back. Once the other server is working again we will undo that workaround. So ws is now getting updated with at least some of the new data. Jeff C.

2 1

whitelist: cooleremail.com and icebase.net?
by Jeff Chan 04 Sep '04

04 Sep '04

cooleremail.com is apparently on WS and asking to be whitelisted. Does anyone know anything about them or why they are on WS? They seem to have reasonable antispam policies: http://www.cooleremail.com/aboutus_spam.shtml Jeff C.

3 6

Perfect example!
by Chris Santerre 03 Sep '04

03 Sep '04

tourisme-montreal.org Just sent a spam to our president. However it has legit uses. Screw them! Here is a nice fresh one for UC :) --Chris

3 4

RFC: Public false positve reporting form
by Jeff Chan 03 Sep '04

03 Sep '04

How does anyone feel about a public false positive reporting form? Such a form would include the reporting party, the domain(s) or IPs, reasons why it's a false positive, etc. It could be processed publically or privately in a bug tracking system. It would be hand checked by some of our experienced spam fighters. The results could be published or simply aggregated without public announcement into the overall whitelist. Is this a good or bad idea? What level of publication should there be? What forms of proof (if any) does anyone like? Other comments? Jeff C.

4 4

← Newer
1
...
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss September 2004