Jeff,
I'd like to hear what anyone else has to say before we pull the plug on ds though.
For every 1000 spam hits on SC/WS/OB.surbl.org DS only gets 100.
I haven't yet seen a real world spam hit in DS that wasn't in one of the other lists.
Over the last few weeks I have had it in our systems it's running between 4 and 5 percent FP.
Personally I'm inclined to think it is a waste of resources. The dynamic data on SC, and the ability to submit to WS make those lists a lot more attractive and worthwhile.
Regards,
Joseph
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:53:46 +0930, Joseph Burford joseph@vintek.net wrote:
Jeff,
I'd like to hear what anyone else has to say before we pull the plug on ds though.
For every 1000 spam hits on SC/WS/OB.surbl.org DS only gets 100.
I haven't yet seen a real world spam hit in DS that wasn't in one of the other lists.
Over the last few weeks I have had it in our systems it's running between 4 and 5 percent FP.
Personally I'm inclined to think it is a waste of resources. The dynamic data on SC, and the ability to submit to WS make those lists a lot more attractive and worthwhile.
I agree,
I'd prefer we spend time on building lists rather than pulling FP's and being concerned that others may still exist.
What did my mum always say?... Quality before quantity :)
On Monday, July 19, 2004, 5:23:46 PM, Joseph Burford wrote:
For every 1000 spam hits on SC/WS/OB.surbl.org DS only gets 100.
I haven't yet seen a real world spam hit in DS that wasn't in one of the other lists.
Over the last few weeks I have had it in our systems it's running between 4 and 5 percent FP.
Personally I'm inclined to think it is a waste of resources. The dynamic data on SC, and the ability to submit to WS make those lists a lot more attractive and worthwhile.
Yikes! I'd say 4 to 5 percent FPs is unworkable for a SURBL....
Anyone else have results of testing ds.surbl.org to share?
Jeff C.
Jeff Chan wrote:
Yikes! I'd say 4 to 5 percent FPs is unworkable for a SURBL....
Anyone else have results of testing ds.surbl.org to share?
Jeff C.
about 3 weeks worth of emails... 83,893 email, 54,848 tagged spam ws 36,026 hits, 0.6% non spam ob 34,829 hits, 0.6% non spam sc 23,554 hits, 0.1% non spam ab 19,057 hits, 0.2% non spam ds 10,745 hits, 3.0% non spam
non spam isn't necessarily ham, it's just email that wasn't tagged as spam. I also haven't been using ds except with a tiny score because of the false positives. it hits lots of list type mail my users wouldn't consider spam.
Daniel
-
Daniel Kleinsinger -
David Hooton -
Jeff Chan -
Joseph Burford