Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1 participants
1864 discussions

RFC: pj.surbl.org - list from Joe Wein and Prolocation data
by Jeff Chan 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

As you know WS has data from several different sources: 1. Bill Stearns' sa-blacklist 2. Chris Santerre and the SARE Ninja's former BigEvil, MidEvil and other new ones. 3. Joe Wein's jwSpamSpy traps 4. Raymond's Prolocation traps and manual list. 5. MailSecurity lists and probably many others I'm not even aware of. So WS has become a collection of many different data sources. In some cases, such as for the jw data, my initial thought was to set it up as a separate list, but it was somewhat easier to let them all be added together. Raymond is currently feeding spamtrap data into Joe's system also. Raymond and I were looking at some of the data sources in WS and their spam detection and false positive rates, and we tried an experiment of checking his Prolocation spam data with Joe Wein's to see what the results would be like. We called that list "PJ" for "Prolocation and Joe" and found that the FP rate on one large corpus was significantly lower than WS, while the spam detection rate was approximately the same: OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME 2424443 2357143 67300 0.972 0.00 0.00 (all messages) 100.000 97.2241 2.7759 0.972 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) 7.595 7.8122 0.0045 0.999 1.00 0.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL 76.754 78.9448 0.0178 1.000 0.80 0.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL 77.230 79.4340 0.0208 1.000 0.60 1.00 URIBL_PJ_SURBL 0.985 1.0126 0.0045 0.996 0.50 0.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL 82.119 84.4600 0.1367 0.998 0.40 0.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL 0.021 0.0216 0.0045 0.829 0.00 0.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL (We removed FPs from both PJ and WS as a result of some of this testing, so both should score relatively better now in terms of FPs. The spam hit rates on SC and AB are low because this spam corpus includes many old spams with URIs which would have rolled off these lists. A test only on more recent days would show much higher spam hit rates for SC and AB.) In Raymond's own test of only spam hits, a later version of PJ got higher detection rates than WS: SpamAssassin tag hits: (edited to top 10) #1 108958 BAYES_99 #2 87001 URIBL_SBL #3 84709 URIBL_PJ_SURBL #4 81455 HTML_MESSAGE #5 78177 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET #6 75546 URIBL_OB_SURBL #7 74892 URIBL_WS_SURBL #8 64610 URIBL_SC_SURBL #9 58190 URIBL_AB_SURBL #10 54230 MIME_HTML_ONLY Since WS has relatively low scores in SA 3, presumably due to the relatively high FP rate: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 08:09:17PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote: >> 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 >> >> So what do the columns above mean? (Theo replied:) > $ 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 thought it might be useful to make the PJ data available as a separate list, at least within multi.surbl.org, the combined SURBL. We'd like to get your comments on this. We're also wondering whether the PJ data should be taken out of WS, or left in, if we do make PJ a distinct list. There's not much downside in leaving PJ in WS, aside from a somewhat larger standalone WS list. On the other hand all of our lists are currently standalone and not deliberate subsets in terms of data sources. But I assume most people will use multi, for which the difference is small either way. By the way, please don't use PJ for production data yet, unless you are rsyncing the zone files, in which case you can mirror PJ locally now from the rsync servers for testing purposes if you like. PJ's only being served up on a couple public servers for our testing; we don't want to overload those servers. PJ is not in multi currently. Note that PJ is only a test list now. It may go away. Please comment, Jeff C.

3 4

OT: For Dallas...
by Alex Broens 18 Sep '04

18 Sep '04

Would appreciate if Dallas would allow me to mail him directly... Apologize for the noise. No other way to contact Dallas. Thanks Alex ----------------- Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: From: alexb(a)MUNGED.CH Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: To: dallase(a)nmgiMUNGED.com Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: Subject: DoubleCheck Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040918212951.0268d918(a)inet.alexb.ch> Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: MX-record resolution of [nmgi.com] in progress (DNS Server: 192.168.192.6)... Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: P=010 D=nmgi.com TTL=(60) MX=[mail2.nmgi.com] {209.218.125.110} Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: P=005 D=nmgi.com TTL=(60) MX=[mail1.nmgi.com] {67.67.32.200} Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Attempting MX: P=005 D=nmgi.com TTL=(60) MX=[mail1.nmgi.com] {67.67.32.200} Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Attempting SMTP connection to [67.67.32.200 : 25] Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Waiting for socket connection... Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Socket connection established (192.168.192.6 : 3407 -> 67.67.32.200 : 25) Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Waiting for protocol initiation... Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 220 mailgw.nmgi.com ESMTP Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: --> EHLO alexb.ch Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250-DoubleCheck Supports Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250-PIPELINING Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250-8BITMIME Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250 AUTH LOGIN PLAIN Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: --> MAIL From:<alexb(a)MUNGED.CH> Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250 ok Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: --> RCPT To:<dallase(a)nmgi.MUNGEDcom> Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 554 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1) Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: SMTP session terminated (Bytes in/out: 181/72) Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: ----------

1 0

Re: Additional URIBL phish/fraud list
by Jeff Chan 18 Sep '04

18 Sep '04

On Friday, September 17, 2004, 4:24:37 PM, Bill Landry wrote: > This is a list that MailPolice hosts and I have been running it for a few > hours and it has already flagged some phish and fraud e-mails. Here is some > info about the list: http://rhs.mailpolice.com/#rhsfraud > This is my configuration for SA 2.64 with the SpamCopURI plug-in: > uri MP_URI_RBL > eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com','127.0.0.2') > describe MP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud list > tflags MP_URI_RBL net > score MP_URI_RBL 2.0 > And for SA 3.0 with the URIDNSBL plug-in: > urirhsbl URIBL_MP fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com. A > header URIBL_MP eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_MP') > describe URIBL_MP URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud list > tflags URIBL_MP net > score URIBL_MP 2.0 > Bill Thanks for finding that additional phishing data Bill! It may be worth noting that we're working on including these into PH inside multi.surbl.org, and that we have 15 times more name servers than mailpolice.com does. ;-) Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

1 0

Whitelist catholicexchangeMUNGED.com
by Fred 18 Sep '04

18 Sep '04

I have a customer who keeps tripping catholicexchangeMUNGED.com Can we get this removed from WS SURBL? Frederic Tarasevicius Internet Information Services, Inc. http://www.i-is.com/ 810-794-4400 mailto:info@i-is.com

4 5

Funniest domain so far?
by Chris Santerre 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

scabpickingisfun.com Can you top that? --Chris

2 1

Pls check: paypal
by Alex Broens 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Jeff & Co. Just scored this a while ago. * 3.0 WS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in ws database at ws.surbl.org * [www.paypal.com [in URI RBL at multi.surbl.org] In the original msg there's a a weird charachter after the .com which I cannot explain. maybe a space? could you pls check where this may be showing up (no in my local zone :) thanks Alex

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Pls check: paypal
by Chris Santerre 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Only one I have is this: www1-paypalSUPERMUNGEDFORYOURPROTECTION.com Sorry :) www1-paypal.com >-----Original Message----- >From: Alex Broens [mailto:surbl@alexb.ch] >Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:22 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Pls check: paypal > > >Jeff & Co. > >Just scored this a while ago. > > * 3.0 WS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in ws database >at ws.surbl.org > * [www.paypal.com [in URI RBL at multi.surbl.org] > >In the original msg there's a a weird charachter after the >.com which I >cannot explain. > >maybe a space? > >could you pls check where this may be showing up (no in my >local zone :) > >thanks > >Alex > > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

Watchit :)
by Alex Broens 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Jeff, FYI: a spam with a link to http://www.cabdriver.kjcjvjv.com.com/ just showed up. Obviously dumbo spammy goofed up... as we obviosuly won't want to SURBLize com.com (cnet) and this may be reported by some spamtrapping system it may be a good idea to check if com.com is whitelisted. thanks Alex

2 1

intercompras.com.gt
by Jeff Chan 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Is anyone familiar with intercompras.com.gt? It's in Guatemala, and appeared recently in the SC data. Can't tell if it's an ISP or something like that. Jeff C.

3 4

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] [OT] FUN: Something to send your family membe rs!
by Chris Santerre 16 Sep '04

16 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:12 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] [OT] FUN: Something to send your family >members! > > >On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 11:51:55 AM, Raymond >Dijkxhoorn wrote: >>>> So for anyone who knows what I'm talking about on this >page, feel free to >>>> spam it to all your friends and family! ;) > >>> Wouldn't it be added to SURBL then? :) > >> Some sites have the luck to be whitelisted, this is one of them ;) > >It's all random, you know. ;-) We use a the Monte Carlo method >with an old dartboard full of domain names to decide what to >whitelist. ;-) Crap!! We really need to standardize. I've been throwing chicken bones and reading tea to whitelist! --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