On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:53:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > In fact, most of the effectiveness of SBL-XBL really comes from the CBL, > > as shown by the widely known statistics: > > > > http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/Blacklists_Compared.html > > Statistics which list only hits, and not false positives or false > negatives, pretty much speak for themselves (and the people who cite > them) as to their relevance.
This is from the statistics for "4 June 2005" from the URL above: 13219 sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org (union of all results) 10757 cbl.abuseat.org Even if those are absolute numbers, and do not include false positives, they allow us to say things like "most of the spam caught by SBL-XBL comes from the fact that it includes the CBL". which is what I meant. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
