[SURBL-Discuss] Please test ob, ob2, ab

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Sun Jun 27 22:00:06 CEST 2004


On Sunday, June 27, 2004, 7:24:48 PM, Joseph Burford wrote:

> 25/06/2004 - 3,756 messages     1,816 marked as spam 

> Description             Total Ham       %       Spam    %
> URL in ws.surbl.org     802     9       1.1     793     98.9
> URL in ob.surbl.org     711     10      1.4     701     98.6
> URL in sc.surbl.org     621     1       0.2     620     99.8
> URL in ob2.surbl.org    617     1       0.2     616     99.8
> URL in ab.surbl.org     377     6       1.6     371     98.4
> URL in be.surbl.org     44      0       0       44      100


> 26/06/2004 - 2,362 messages     1,566 marked as spam  

> Description             Total Ham       %       Spam    %
> URL in ob.surbl.org     678     1       0.1     677     99.9
> URL in sc.surbl.org     626     0       0       626     100
> URL in ob2.surbl.org    624     0       0       624     100
> URL in ws.surbl.org     576     1       0.2     575     99.8
> URL in ab.surbl.org     415     17      4.1     398     95.9
> URL in be.surbl.org     70      0       0       70      100


> 27/06/2004 - 1,956 messages     1,313 marked as spam

> Description             Total Ham       %       Spam    %
> URL in sc.surbl.org     625     0       0       625     100
> URL in ws.surbl.org     622     2       0.3     620     99.7
> URL in ob.surbl.org     590     0       0       590     100
> URL in ob2.surbl.org    590     0       0       590     100
> URL in ab.surbl.org     423     0       0       423     100
> URL in be.surbl.org     32      0       0       32      100

Thanks Joseph!  That looks fairly consistent with what Justin
found from his corpus test.  In particular the old ob had a
higher spam detection rate but also a higher fp rate than ob2.
Now ob2 and ob are the same (using the ob2 type data).

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list