Discuss September 2004

discuss@lists.surbl.org

62 participants
229 discussions

Fwd: Re: Why such a low score?
by Jeff Chan 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

This is a forwarded message From: Matt Kettler <mkettler(a)evi-inc.com> To: Chris Santerre <csanterre(a)MerchantsOverseas.com>, users(a)spamassassin.apache.org Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 8:13:27 AM Subject: Why such a low score? ===8<==============Original message text=============== At 10:55 AM 9/29/2004, Chris Santerre wrote: >What was the reason WS got such a low score in SA 3.0??? .5 is a joke! Hell >BigEvil was scored a 3 and now one complained, and it is the same data!! I >don't understand. Did the mass check not go well? Upon closer inspection, the WS mass-check went pretty well, but WS had the greatest number of nonspam hits of all the SURBL lists. It also hit the most spam, but the OB list hit nearly as much spam, and almost no nonspam. Since the GA treats FP's as 100 times worse than FNs, the GA is going to heavily bias the score of any overlapping spam hits to the one that has the least nonspam hits. I suspect that in the spam cases, most of the WS hits also hit either OB or SC, which have better FP ratios, and the scores assigned reflect this. Admittedly the amount of nonspam WS hit is small (0.4%), but that's over 6 times more nonspam than OB did, and 100 times more than SC did. Thus WS got a lowish score not for being a bad rule, but for not doing as well as it's neighbors that catch the same spams. From STATISTICS-set1.txt OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME 10.497 15.8904 0.0008 1.000 0.98 2.01 URIBL_AB_SURBL 18.019 27.2741 0.0046 1.000 0.97 3.90 URIBL_SC_SURBL 49.029 74.1861 0.0654 0.999 0.74 2.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL 51.999 78.4712 0.4756 0.994 0.45 0.54 URIBL_WS_SURBL 0.010 0.0146 0.0012 0.927 0.39 0.84 URIBL_PH_SURBL From STATISTICS-set3.txt: OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME 7.022 14.4233 0.0061 1.000 0.95 4.26 URIBL_SC_SURBL 30.471 62.5514 0.0632 0.999 0.74 3.21 URIBL_OB_SURBL 2.950 6.0208 0.0385 0.994 0.73 0.42 URIBL_AB_SURBL 33.807 68.9994 0.4494 0.994 0.47 1.46 URIBL_WS_SURBL 0.019 0.0390 0.0008 0.981 0.44 2.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL grep SURBL 50_scores.cf: 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 ===8<===========End of original message text===========

1 0

Why such a low score?
by Chris Santerre 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

What was the reason WS got such a low score in SA 3.0??? .5 is a joke! Hell BigEvil was scored a 3 and now one complained, and it is the same data!! I don't understand. Did the mass check not go well? Chris Santerre System Admin and SARE Ninja http://www.rulesemporium.com http://www.surbl.org 'It is not the strongest of the species that survives, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.' Charles Darwin

2 1

Re: Why such a low score?
by Matt Kettler 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

At 10:55 AM 9/29/2004, Chris Santerre wrote: >What was the reason WS got such a low score in SA 3.0??? .5 is a joke! Hell >BigEvil was scored a 3 and now one complained, and it is the same data!! I >don't understand. Did the mass check not go well? Chris... Calm down a sec. The score assigned by the GA does not indicate how well or poorly a rule performs. In this case WS probably got a low score due to a large amount of overlap with the other URIBL rules. Remember, the GA tunes the scores so the optimal amount of spam and ham end up in the right baskets. This means that rule scores aren't a function of just the rule, but a function of how that rule interacts with other rules.

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Possible FP
by Chris Santerre 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:20 PM >To: Jeff Chan; SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Possible FP > > >Hi! > >>>> cellular4free . com >> >>>> No hits from Google/NANAS >> >>> Domain 1.2 years old, no SBL hits. >> >>> Any WS guys know why this one got added? >> >>> Jeff C. >> >> Can anyone with access to WS data sources tell us anything >> about this domain or why it was added? Otherwise we may need >> to whitelist it. >> >> Bill, Chris, Raymond? Can you say where it came from? > >Not here... > Not here either. --Chris

1 0

surbl and squid
by Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Hello, I've just adapted an old script I use with squid to remove unwanted ads to use surbl... This works as a redirector - this means, each time someone ask for an url matching surbl database, squid will redirect the query to a locally saved web page - e.g. a web page showing the site policy or a simple error message. For the while, this is a very draft script, but it works fine. I'll surely improve it and maybe write a C version which shall be much faster for huge domains. You can get it at : http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr/surbl/squid-surbl-it All feedback is welcome. Best Jose-Marcio -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ Tel. :(33) 01.40.51.93.41 Ecole des Mines de Paris http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr 60, bd Saint Michel http://www.ensmp.fr/~martins 75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06 mailto:Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr

2 2

Test points
by Daniel Kleinsinger 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Are there test points for any of the SURBLs besides SC? The surbl-org-permanent-test-point-MUNGED.com one only seems to hit SC. I'm asking cause I haven't had any hits on PH since I upgraded to SA3... I get hits on all the others. Thanks, Daniel

3 2

FP on WS
by Bill Landry 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Another one that does not need much in the way of justification: pitneyworks. com But in an effort to keep Jeff happy and quite: ;-) - Domain owned by Pitney Bowes and domain record created on 13-Aug-1998 - No SBL listings - No NANAS listings Bill

3 2

Possible WS FP: interactivefmg.com
by Jeff Chan 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Does anyone with WS data source visibility know why this one was added: This is a forwarded message From: Jody Powell <jpowell(a)interactivefmg.com> To: whitelist(a)surbl.org Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 6:47:36 AM Subject: Blacklisted Domain Sirs, Our domain interactivefmg.com is on your blacklist. This domain handles our day-to-day corporate e-mail and no commercial solicitations orginiate from this domain with the exception of individual information packets sent to clients who have requested them via the telephone. Please remove us from your blacklist, or let us know what we need to do to meet the requirements to be whitelisted. Thanks, Jody Powell Network Administrator InterActive Financial Marketing Group, LLC 114 Virginia Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 -- Jeff Chan mailto:whitelist@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

2 3

RE: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to suesingle4y ou.net
by Chris Santerre 28 Sep '04

28 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:45 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to >suesingle4y ou.net > > >On Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 6:43:09 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> The only basis we still have is this guys word that he is >legit. Are we >> going to whitelist everyone who simply asks to be >whitelisted? Yes or No? > >No. Oh, now your taking the fun out of arguing with you ;) Did you break your JO cd? DOn't see ya playing much. --Chris (I need cover fire on the bridge!!!)

1 0

RE: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to suesingle4y ou.net
by Chris Santerre 28 Sep '04

28 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Alex Broens [mailto:surbl@alexb.ch] >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:52 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to >suesingle4y ou.net > > >Chris Santerre wrote: >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >>>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:18 PM >>>To: Frank Ellermann >>>Cc: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >>>Subject: Re: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to >>>suesingle4y ou.net >>> >>> >>>On Monday, September 27, 2004, 5:12:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: >>> >>>>Jeff Chan wrote: >>> >>>>>"A. Add domains that appear only in spam. Do not add any >>>>>domains that appear in ham." >>> >>>>As an absolute rule that won't work, because the criminal >>>>spammer talks with his rogue registrar in "ham". >>> >>>I don't consider spammer's messages to be ham. Only ham from >>>legitimate people (non-spammers) is ordinary ham. >>> >>>Jeff C. >>>-- >>>"If it appears in hams, then don't list it." >>> >> >> >> Oh yeah single4you.net is realy legit.... and I'm the queen >of England. >> Their site is back up, with personal ads that show picts of >people. Too bad >> one of the pics is snoop dog, and another is Conan the Barbarian!! > >LOL > >http://www.single4you.net/membership/homepage.aspx?mid=10980&vi sside=true :-) I read the snoop dog and conan ones. --Chris ( ilike ot play cricket chess)

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
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