----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Bramble > I like pure spamtrap RBL's because clean ones have no false > positives. CBL is a good one to add if you haven't checked > it out, and it produces a lot of hits (with no FP's in a week of > monitoring).
Yep, I've been using CBL for a few months now. It is fairly acurate, but not that high a scoring test compared to some other I use: 1910 CBL as compared to some of the other higher scoring tests: 9902 REYNOLDS 7295 SPAMCOP 7254 MAILPOLICE-BULK 6440 EASYNET-DNSBL 5155 SPAMHAUS 4878 SPAMSITES 4692 BLARSBL I use quite a few DNSBL and RHSBL tests, scoring most of them pretty low, but looking to gain weight by finding consistency and matches in several different databases, rather then scoring few test higher. This help keep the FPs lower because you don't rely on a single database test with a high score that may inadvertantly flag a legit message that triggers a hold or delete weight. Using more tests with lower weights allow for a few of the databases to flag a particular message but still not cause it to reach a hold or delete weight, at least not without several confirming databases. Bill --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
