[SURBL-Discuss] Re: New SURBL additions

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Sat Jul 3 02:54:58 CEST 2004


On Friday, July 2, 2004, 6:06:16 AM, Don Newcomer wrote:
> Here are my counts since 6:50 PM yesterday for all URI_RBL rules sorted by
> spam and ham:

> URI_RBL spam counts:

>  3577 - AB_URI_RBL (5.0) - surbl.cf
>  2499 - DS_URI_RBL (0.33) - surbl.cf
>  7282 - OB_URI_RBL (4.0) - surbl.cf
>  4279 - SPAMCOP_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf
>  5458 - WS_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf

> URI_RBL ham counts:

>   231 - DS_URI_RBL (0.33) - surbl.cf
>    18 - OB_URI_RBL (4.0) - surbl.cf
>     1 - SPAMCOP_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf
>    29 - WS_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf

> Interesting that AB_URI_RBL has no false positives yet...  Still, we
> haven't released spam filtering to our users yet so my Bayes training is
> based pretty much on all of the SA rulesets' interpretation of spam (which
> isn't necessarily a bad thing).

Thanks much for the data Don, particularly the false positive
hits.  Does anyone else have any to share?   If so please post
them here.

ab.surbl.org is based on SpamCop data plus some manual reports,
as is sc.surbl.org, but ab has a different inclusion criteria
of taking the top 500 most often reported (less www. duplicates
and whitelists hits) over 7 days, whereas sc has an arbitrary
inclusion threshold of 10 reports over 4 days.  1 FP for sc
is pretty good, though zero is better.  :-)

ob is pretty impressive in terms of hit rate and relatively
low FP rate, at least as a percentage of hits.

Note that ds.surbl.org (based on 6dos data) is now up on 5 name
servers so it may be ok to use on production servers for beta
testing.

Please note that I probably won't be able to check email for
about a week so hopefully others will help answer SURBL
questions, etc.

Cheers,

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list