Rob McEwen wrote to 'SURBL Discussion list':
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?
Essentially, yes. UC is not more aggressive *by definition*, but it certainly has the potential to hit on ham, which is why it is, in some ways, fundamentally different than the SURBL philosophy. I.e., it is not a "block list", but more of a "spam sign" list. That's where the divide exists in many of these black/white list discussions. There seem to be camps of people that think in terms of one, or the other, but comparatively few people seem to look at both approaches.
I'm confident, though, that once UC grows to a statistically significant size, the FP rate will nonetheless be quite low indeed.
- Ryan