59 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
59 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
From quinlan@pathname.com Tue Sep 17 23:30:38 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <quinlan@pathname.com>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
|
|
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF15F16F03
|
|
for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 23:30:37 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
|
|
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
|
|
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 17 Sep 2002 23:30:38 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from proton.pathname.com
|
|
(adsl-216-103-211-240.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [216.103.211.240]) by
|
|
dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8HKVLC25673 for
|
|
<jm@jmason.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:31:21 +0100
|
|
Received: from quinlan by proton.pathname.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1
|
|
(Debian)) id 17rP0f-0004fo-00; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:31:49 -0700
|
|
To: yyyy@example.com (Justin Mason)
|
|
Cc: spamassassin-devel@example.sourceforge.net
|
|
Subject: Re: [SAdev] Re: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin and unconfirmed.dsbl.org
|
|
References: <20020917142054.5C4E916F16@example.com>
|
|
From: Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@pathname.com>
|
|
Date: 17 Sep 2002 13:31:49 -0700
|
|
In-Reply-To: yyyy@example.com's message of "Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:20:49 +0100"
|
|
Message-Id: <yf2znuge4sq.fsf@proton.pathname.com>
|
|
Lines: 25
|
|
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
|
|
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.9 required=7.0
|
|
tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
version=2.50-cvs
|
|
X-Spam-Level:
|
|
|
|
jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) writes:
|
|
|
|
> Folks who've been hacking on the DNSBLs: would it be worthwhile commenting
|
|
> this in HEAD, seeing as it only gets .77 anyway?
|
|
>
|
|
> Sounds like the (a) broken server and (b) low hitrate combine to make it
|
|
> not-so-useful IMO.
|
|
|
|
No, in my opinion, it's purely a bug in SA (or the libraries we use,
|
|
which is the same thing) that we don't handle outages of network
|
|
services better.
|
|
|
|
The rule is useful and it does help reduce spam, we should keep it. I
|
|
have a feeling the DNSBL rules will cluster a bit more heavily around
|
|
the 1.0 to 2.0 range once we start using the new GA on them.
|
|
|
|
Also, 0.77 was a slightly conservative number. Since I didn't have
|
|
real-time data, I typically used the lower or median number of different
|
|
periods (most recent month, two months, six months), depending on the
|
|
trend of the period data (better performance for recent messages ->
|
|
favor recent scores, worse performance for recent messages -> favor
|
|
lowest scores, never pick the highest number unless the rule was very
|
|
accurate and the highest number was for the most recent data).
|
|
|
|
Dan
|
|
|
|
|