From: Jeff Chan To: SpamAssassin Users Date: Thursday, August 5, 2004, 4:04:25 AM Subject: SpamAssassin 2.64 is released!
On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 10:46:34 PM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
"jdow" jdow@earthlink.net writes:
Did this port the SURBL into the release or not?
Adding SURBL to 2.64 wasn't really an option we could consider. A few reasons off of the top of my head:
- the 2.6x tree is our stable tree and that would be a major change
- the main purpose of 2.64 is fixing a specific security issue, adding SURBL would have delayed the release and added unnecessary risk
[...]
It's probably worth noting the Eric happened to have revised SpamCopURI recently also, to version 0.21. Perhaps more importantly several people have tried SpamCopURI 0.21 with SpamAssassin 2.64 and they seem to work just fine together.
OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME 151033 122586 28447 0.812 0.00 0.00 (all messages) 100.000 81.1650 18.8350 0.812 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) 23.882 29.4218 0.0105 1.000 0.98 0.00 RCVD_IN_XBL 17.441 21.4837 0.0176 0.999 0.97 0.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL 53.206 65.5156 0.1582 0.998 0.90 0.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL 9.897 12.1449 0.2074 0.983 0.82 0.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL 58.068 71.4494 0.4043 0.994 0.79 0.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL 0.017 0.0204 0.0000 1.000 0.48 0.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL
Thanks for the additional stats. I'll assume the spam detection rates for AB and SC are probably low because Daniel's spam corpus covers a much longer historical time period than would typically be encountered with messages in real time. Other rule stats seems to suggest SC, WS, and OB have fairly similar spam detection rates, such as these from Raymond Dijkxhoorn:
SpamAssassin tag hits: (top 100) #1 64675 BAYES_99 #2 54198 HTML_MESSAGE #3 44694 RCVD_IN_SBL+XBL #4 43427 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET #5 37191 RCVD_IN_SORBS #6 35888 WS_URI_RBL #7 33729 SPAMCOP_URI_RBL #8 33089 MIME_HTML_ONLY #9 32485 OUTBLAZE_URI_RBL #10 26678 RCVD_IN_DSBL #11 19665 RCVD_IN_AHBL #12 19662 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK #13 19146 CLICK_BELOW #14 18374 ABUSEBUTLER_URI_RBL
Cheers,
Jeff C.