Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1867 discussions

Re: [SURBL-Announce] ANNOUNCE: ccTLDs in two-level-tlds file updated somewhat
by Leonardo Helman 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Hi, don't forget: gov.ar (government) mil.ar (armed forces) edu.ar (universities and university-related research groups) esc.edu.ar (elementary schools, high schools and other (non-universitary educational institutions). uba.ar (Buenos Aires University) educ.ar There was a thread on this list started by Mariano Absatz on Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:41:30 On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 09:22:23PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote: > On Saturday, September 18, 2004, 11:58:56 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > [Konqueror list] > >>> | name,ai,au,bd,bh,ck,eg,et,fk,il,in,kh,kr,mk,mt,na, > >>> | np,nz,pg,pk,qa,sa,sb,sg,sv,ua,ug,uk,uy,vn,za,zw > > I have updated the ccTLDs for the ones Frank mentioned, > removed some duplicates, and added some data for a few > other ccTLDs. The results are in: > > http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/two-level-tlds > > Really this is just for completeness since geographic > domains other than .us aren't used in spams too often. > > Jeff C. > -- > "If it appears in hams, then don't list it." > > _______________________________________________ > Announce mailing list > Announce(a)lists.surbl.org > http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/announce

4 5

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] FP in OB g4techtv .com
by Chris Santerre 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:09 AM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] FP in OB g4techtv .com > > >On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 7:58:16 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> 2.0 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB >SURBL blocklist >> [URIs: g4techtv .com] > >> Ahhhhhhh my game news!!!!!! > >> --Chris > >I heard they spam... ;-) > >Whitelist them with documentation. > But it is on OB list, I thought I could only whitelist for WS? --Chris "If it appears in spam, do not whitelist."

3 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] FP in OB g4techtv .com
by Chris Santerre 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Fred [mailto:tech2@i-is.com] >Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:35 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] FP in OB g4techtv .com > > >Jeff Chan wrote: >> I heard they spam... ;-) >> >> Whitelist them with documentation. >> >> Jeff C. > >They were bought by Comcast and we know how much they care about spam.. >Maybe things have changed recently, in the past we were being >attacked by a >different customer daily. > >I want LEO back and I'm still mad at TechTV for taking off the >shows they >did. I say keep them listed ;) > > >If they bring back Leo then we can whitelist them :) I grew >up watching Leo >teach people about computers now I do it myself, but I still miss him! > I agree! X-Play seems lost. Sweat and Players are stupid shows. Bring back Leo!! --Chris (Burnout 3 is hurting my thumbs!)

1 0

FP in OB g4techtv .com
by Chris Santerre 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

2.0 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist [URIs: g4techtv .com] Ahhhhhhh my game news!!!!!! --Chris

3 2

ignore
by Doc Schneider 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Just a test... I got a bounce back from this on my last post. -Doc

1 0

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

29 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] >Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:10 AM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail); Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) >Subject: Re: Why such a low score? > > >Chris, > >> 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? > >We pointed this out several times, the mass checker found way too many >FP's and so SA decided to score it lower. Its 'our own' >problem, we have >to get out those FP's. The scoring is done with SA 3.1 again, >so lets try >to do better there... > >And yes, i am disappointed also with this very low scoring, >personally i >have raised it via my local.cf. > I am as well. I wonder when they did the testing. We have changed so much of WS to reduce FPs. And with the rates reported now, you can see why I was stunned to see this score. (I do vaguley remember a post from Theo or DQ about this.) I'd love to know what a new GA run would say about this now. --Chris

1 0

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

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss