[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: significantly reducing FPs on OB

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Sat Jul 19 10:06:02 CEST 2008


On Sunday, July 13, 2008, 1:39:01 PM, Theo Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:20:18PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> Which brings up a good point: does anyone have any current test
>> data about the OB list that they can share, i.e., false positive
>> rate especially compared to the other SURBL lists?

> Here's the stats for a recent run of mine using the at-time-of-receipt
> network test results:

> OVERALL    SPAM%     HAM%     S/O    RANK   SCORE  NAME
>       0   946808    55766    0.944   0.00    0.00  (all messages)
> 0.00000  94.4377   5.5623    0.944   0.00    0.00  (all messages as %)
>  60.480  64.0420   0.0018    1.000   1.00    0.00  URIBL_JP_SURBL
>  42.395  44.8921   0.0000    1.000   0.98    0.00  URIBL_SC_SURBL
>  36.647  38.8052   0.0000    1.000   0.98    0.00  URIBL_AB_SURBL
>  27.543  29.1633   0.0341    0.999   0.95    0.00  URIBL_WS_SURBL
>  43.095  45.6271   0.1022    0.998   0.91    0.00  URIBL_OB_SURBL
>   0.712   0.7537   0.0072    0.991   0.83    0.00  URIBL_PH_SURBL

> I don't know what the overlap and such is on these.

> FWIW: It seems like everytime I report a SURBL FP it's because of OB.  So I'm
> all for cleaning up the list/listing criteria.

Thanks Theo.  Can you describe what the time factors are on the
corpora checks?  If we make a change to the OB data, how (soon)
would it be reflected in the checks?

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list