"Jeff Chan" jeffc@surbl.org wrote in message news:182909761.20080713093057@surbl.org...
On Sunday, July 13, 2008, 9:12:25 AM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org wrote:
I think we probably can't reveal the exact listing criteria in case they're useful for the bad guys. I know it's somewhat inappropriate to ask for comments without revealing details. I suppose I'm asking for general responses then. :)
So you'll keep ob, but take some undisclosed action to improve its accuracy. Sounds worthwhile to me.
Thanks! Yes, we would not get rid of OB entirely ever. It does have some good data, but with too many FPs. The goal would be to keep as much of the good data as possible while eliminating most of the bad. Unfortunately some of the good data may be thrown out with the bad; baby with the bathwater, so to speak. IMO FPs are much worse than FNs, so some increase in FNs balances out a decrease in FPs. Trying to decide if it's worth doing....
Jeff C.
Sounds like a great idea to me too - fewer FPs is always a good thing...
Cheers, Jeremy