[SURBL-Discuss] Re: RFC: significantly reducing FPs on OB
jeremy at fairbrass.co.nz
Mon Jul 14 10:43:00 CEST 2008
"Jeff Chan" <jeffc at surbl.org> wrote in message news:182909761.20080713093057 at surbl.org...
> On Sunday, July 13, 2008, 9:12:25 AM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
>> Jeff Chan <jeffc at surbl.org> wrote:
>>> I think we
>>> probably can't reveal the exact listing criteria in case they're
>>> useful for the bad guys. I know it's somewhat inappropriate to
>>> ask for comments without revealing details. I suppose I'm asking
>>> for general responses then. :)
>> So you'll keep ob, but take some undisclosed action to improve its
>> accuracy. Sounds worthwhile to me.
> Thanks! Yes, we would not get rid of OB entirely ever. It does
> have some good data, but with too many FPs. The goal would be to
> keep as much of the good data as possible while eliminating most
> of the bad. Unfortunately some of the good data may be thrown
> out with the bad; baby with the bathwater, so to speak. IMO FPs
> are much worse than FNs, so some increase in FNs balances out a
> decrease in FPs. Trying to decide if it's worth doing....
> Jeff C.
Sounds like a great idea to me too - fewer FPs is always a good thing...
More information about the Discuss