On Friday, October 15, 2004, 10:13:41 PM, Daniel Kleinsinger wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
Hopefully that will decrease the FPs in WS, though there is still work to do if we're serious about reducing FPs.
I don't want to say too much (cause I don't really know what I'm talking about!), but back in the day of separate cf files, it wasn't bigevil.cf that gave me FPs, it was sa-blacklist.cf. When they were separate I didn't actually use sa-blacklist because of the FPs. Too be honest, I wasn't too pleased when bigevil started to exist only as the WS surbl because of the sa-blacklist FPs.
One reason for getting rid of BigEvil is that it was created with a different set of assumptions and attitudes towards what should be listed or not listed compared to the current ideas. There are quite a few data in WS that should also be removed due to being created under older policies.
That said, any overlap between the old BigEvil domains and the more recent WS sources will cause the overlap to be listed.
What I'm saying may be totally off base, but if you're looking for FPs to remove, how about checking the sa-blacklist stuff that's still in WS? Does that even make sense?
Yes, some of the other sources are probably larger sources of FPs than BigEvil. We've asked some of those other sources to check their data, particularly against the DMOZ hits, as many of those are probably FPs.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."