[SURBL-Discuss] XS hits

Paul Shields paul.shields at blueyonder.co.uk
Sun Apr 24 09:40:21 CEST 2005

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Chan" <jeffc at surbl.org>
> Hi Paul,
> Thanks very much for sharing your data.  Your results look about
> as should be expected for the other lists in terms of FPs and
> spam detection.   Summarizing your numbers:
> AB:       521886 spam      604 ham
> WS:       996200 spam    12578 ham
> JP:      1234602 spam     4376 ham
> OB:      1139181 spam    36760 ham
> SC:       751549 spam     1095 ham
> PH:          383 spam        1 ham
> XS:       939134 spam     6283 ham
> XS unique: 10456 spam     5300 ham
> For XS it looks like the Spam to Ham ratio is only about 2:1
> which means it has too many FPs, and doesn't hit much unique
> spam, which is also reasonable given the lack of significant
> legitimate domain filtering and high inclusion threshold.
> We will work to improve those much further before we propose
> adding it to the production data in multi.
> In terms of ratios of the current lists, OB is underperforming
> the others, judging by your data.  I'm ccing Suresh at Outblaze
> so he can see the measurements you got.
> All the lists need to hit less ham, and more aggressive checking
> and whitelisting is probably needed, assuming the data sources
> don't change their inclusion policies.  I hope to address this
> in future.
> Jeff C.

Happy to help Jeff.

Don't forget though that we have many custom SA rulesets, and thresholds 
that can be applied per mailbox, so my ham to spam ratio is not necessarily 
going to reflect a 'stock' install (this is ham or spam as defined by a 
variable threshold, not by someone actually identifying the message!).


More information about the Discuss mailing list