-----Original Message----- From: Fred [mailto:tech2@i-is.com] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 1:26 PM To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] FP rate?
Chris Santerre wrote:
Can we trust the FP rate with the current bug in SA?
Not taking sides but it might be a bug in Net::DNS, the SA devs have not exactly tied down what was causing this issue. There was talk of re-write in the way they use Net::DNS to possibly fix this issue but I'm pretty sure this was not SA specific.
Oh I agree. I don't know what is causing it, but I know it must be throwing off the reported FP rate. Although proably for all the URIRBLs. I'd love to get a monthly report from DQ on his rates. But I know he is busy.
--Chris
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:43:35PM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
Oh I agree. I don't know what is causing it, but I know it must be throwing off the reported FP rate. Although proably for all the URIRBLs. I'd love to get a monthly report from DQ on his rates. But I know he is busy.
All our mass-check results are available via anonymous rsync. Feel free to generate some statistics. ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:43:35PM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
Oh I agree. I don't know what is causing it, but I know it must be throwing off the reported FP rate. Although proably for all the URIRBLs. I'd love to get a monthly report from DQ on his rates. But I know he is busy.
All our mass-check results are available via anonymous rsync. Feel free to generate some statistics. ;)
This could be tested quite easily, if anyone has the tuits...
1. do a network mass-check of the SURBL rules. 2. restart named, in case it's a named-cache issue (unlikely) 3. do another with exactly the same corpus. 4. diff the logs.
- --j.
On Monday, February 14, 2005, 11:59:04 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
Theo Van Dinter writes:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:43:35PM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
Oh I agree. I don't know what is causing it, but I know it must be throwing off the reported FP rate. Although proably for all the URIRBLs. I'd love to get a monthly report from DQ on his rates. But I know he is busy.
All our mass-check results are available via anonymous rsync. Feel free to generate some statistics. ;)
This could be tested quite easily, if anyone has the tuits...
- do a network mass-check of the SURBL rules.
- restart named, in case it's a named-cache issue (unlikely)
- do another with exactly the same corpus.
- diff the logs.
Assuming the test platform we happen to use gets the problem.
Does anyone have enough info to make a report to the Net::DNS folks?
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
-
Chris Santerre -
Jeff Chan -
jm＠jmason.org -
Theo Van Dinter