On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:39:11 -1000
"Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
> We haven't had working statistics viewing for a few weeks, but now it
> is fixed and I'm amazed by the performance of RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL.
>
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110409-r1090548-n/T_RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL/detail
>
> RCVD_IN_
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 22:51, Adam Katz wrote:
> RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL has 99% overlap with the SA3.3 set and 98% with the
> SA3.2 set. That leaves 0.6758% of spam uniquely hitting this DNSBL (1%
> of its 67.5822%). RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK has the same story, resulting in
> 0.5138% unique spam from its 1%
On 04/12/2011 01:39 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> We haven't had working statistics viewing for a few weeks, but now it
> is fixed and I'm amazed by the performance of RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL.
>
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110409-r1090548-n/T_RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL/detail
>
>
> RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL ha
Hi,
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110409-r1090548-n/T_RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL/detail
> HOSTKARMA_BL overlaps with MSPIKE_BL 88% of the time, but detects far fewer
> spam and and with slightly more FP's. Compared to last year, HOSTKARMA_BL's
> safety rating has improved considerably on a sustain
We haven't had working statistics viewing for a few weeks, but now it is
fixed and I'm amazed by the performance of RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL.
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110409-r1090548-n/T_RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL/detail
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL has nearly the highest spam detection ratio of all the
DNSBL's,
