On Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 12:15:23 AM, Daniel Kleinsinger wrote:
I've had xs in my config for a while and with a low score (<1) it's hit on 28,362 emails that were tagged as spam and 11 not tagged over the last 2 weeks. The hits are pretty consistent over that time frame. I'm not sure when xs was "revised" so the numbers might not reflect current performance.
The list content change on XS was made on 7/25. The revised version of XS should hit more spam and much less ham.
Total mail volume during that time is ~100,000 with 75% tagged as spam.
Of the 11 not tagged, 3 were from mailing lists about spam, 2 were on a whitelisted mailing list (probably fps), 4 were fns, and 1 was somewhat questionable (probably an fp). Unfortunately, I don't have a way of seeing what domains hit so I can't know what the fps were.
Of the 28,373 messages that were hits: 28,176 also hit one of the RAZOR2 rules 28,049 also hit URIBL_BLACK 26,767 also hit URIBL_JP_SURBL 25,912 also hit URIBL_SBL and the remaining SURBL (AB,SC,OB,WS) hit between 22,000 and 25,000 messages.
Compared to other URIBL it ranks last in total spam hits (shown as tagged spam hits/not tagged spam hits): RAZOR2 68,015/810 (included for comparison even though it's not a URIBL, it hits the most spam test at my site) URIBL_BLACK 55,748/243 URIBL_SBL 54,721/167 URIBL_JP_SURBL 49,221/21 URIBL_AB_SURBL 36,673/3 URIBL_SC_SURBL 34,322/5 URIBL_OB_SURBL 32,970/75 URIBL_WS_SURBL 32,929/88 URIBL_XS_SURBL 28,366/11
The hit rate is a little low, but the approximate fp ratio ratio is very good. I'm a fan of anything that moves scores upwards!
Thanks much for sharing your results!
Has anyone else given XS or SC2 a try yet? It's ok to respond after some more data has accumulated if you're waiting for that.
Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.