I guess we need to come to some kind of consensus on what is the higher
Sorry... I haven't been reading the list messages as closely as in the past few days as unusual (my computer crashed a few days ago and I've been setting up a new system this weekend)
...but I did catch this message from Bill, and I couldn't help but think "haven't we been here before and didn't we already debate this stuff endlessly and didn't we already come to several fairly strong decisions?"
I think that the basic idea behind SURBL is that we want mail administrators using SURBL to be able to use it in a "set it and forget it mode" there they practically never have to audit it or check behind it and can sleep well at night knowing that the chances of getting a call the next morning from an angry client regarding blocked mail practically never happens with regard to SURBL-blocked mail.
FOR EXAMPLE: That same mail administrator may have OTHER blocking methods that are more aggressive... but he doesn't mind doing more auditing and filter adjustments for these because, even though these may be more likely to have FPs, these (that got past SURBL and whatever conservative RBL checking) represent a rather meager percentage of the total spam blocked. In other words, after 10,000 spams were blocked by SURBL and RBL checking, the mail administrator doesn't mind that his OTHER blocking methods which blocked another 800 messages require some occasional auditing/checking/filter adjusting. He is just thinking, "thank God I don't have worry about that pile of 10,000 messages"
Make sense? Isn't that what we already decided? And isn't Ryan's other list for "UC" where the just-barely-not-listed in SURBL are suppose to go?
Rob McEwen