[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)

[Jeff Chan]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 12:15:23 AM, Daniel Kleinsinger wrote:
> I've had xs in my config for a while and with a low score (<1) it's hit
> on 28,362 emails that were tagged as spam and 11 not tagged over the 
> last 2 weeks.  The hits are pretty consistent over that time frame.  I'm 
> not sure when xs was "revised" so the numbers might not reflect current 
> performance.

The list content change on XS was made on 7/25.  The revised
version of XS should hit more spam and much less ham.

> Total mail volume during that time is ~100,000 with 75% 
> tagged as spam. 

> Of the 11 not tagged, 3 were from mailing lists about spam, 2 were on a 
> whitelisted mailing list (probably fps), 4 were fns, and 1 was somewhat 
> questionable (probably an fp).  Unfortunately, I don't have a way of 
> seeing what domains hit so I can't know what the fps were. 

> Of the 28,373 messages that were hits:
> 28,176 also hit one of the RAZOR2 rules
> 28,049 also hit URIBL_BLACK
> 26,767 also hit URIBL_JP_SURBL
> 25,912 also hit URIBL_SBL
> and the remaining SURBL (AB,SC,OB,WS) hit between 22,000 and 25,000 
> messages.

> Compared to other URIBL it ranks last in total spam hits (shown as 
> tagged spam hits/not tagged spam hits):
> RAZOR2 68,015/810 (included for comparison even though it's not a URIBL, 
> it hits the most spam test at my site)
> URIBL_BLACK 55,748/243
> URIBL_SBL 54,721/167
> URIBL_JP_SURBL 49,221/21
> URIBL_AB_SURBL 36,673/3
> URIBL_SC_SURBL 34,322/5
> URIBL_OB_SURBL 32,970/75
> URIBL_WS_SURBL 32,929/88
> URIBL_XS_SURBL 28,366/11

> The hit rate is a little low, but the approximate fp ratio ratio is very 
> good.  I'm a fan of anything that moves scores upwards!

Thanks much for sharing your results!

Has anyone else given XS or SC2 a try yet?  It's ok to respond
after some more data has accumulated if you're waiting for that.

Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.