[SURBL-Discuss] general questions.....
jeffc at surbl.org
Wed Nov 24 10:58:35 CET 2004
On Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 2:18:09 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Jeff, I didn't mean to make you have to rehash the standards for SURBL. I
> totally understood these already and I didn't mean to imply differently in
> my original post. (But I suppose you have to always be on your guard to
> prevent misunderstandings. You can never be too careful...)
I appreciate seeing your examples and getting to discuss some
of them. It's probably good to discuss some of the things we're
all trying to do.
> But your answers regarding the corpuses were exactly what I was questioning.
> Basically, 1 FP in 50,000 is not bad. But if most of these FPs are
> "white-hat marketer" advertisements (an oxymoron?) or newsletters ...and few
> of them are actual human-typed correspondence, then this percentage is even
> better. If the opposite is true, then this might not be quite as good as it
Yes, getting down in the small fractions of percents is a
little like looking for subatomic particles. You never know
exactly what you might find when you look there....
> Interestingly, I've read some phenomenal and very specific stats from Mail
> Filtering companies who don't get specific about these kinds of issues
> mentioned here and I wonder "who are they kidding".
Anyone who will believe them? ;-)
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
More information about the Discuss