On Friday, January 7, 2005, 1:33:49 AM, Daniel Kleinsinger wrote:
> Is JP now separate from WS? I currently score it as 1.5 or something
> because anything hitting JP would hit WS too. On the surbl webpage it
> says it's not separate yet, but the score below makes me think maybe it is.
JP is s
Is JP now separate from WS? I currently score it as 1.5 or something
because anything hitting JP would hit WS too. On the surbl webpage it
says it's not separate yet, but the score below makes me think maybe it is.
And to stay on topic, of the 52,180 spams tagged or deleted by my mail
server
Please add a rule for the JP SURBL list. It catches as much spam
as WS or OB:
http://www.surbl.org/quickstart.html
jp - jwSpamSpy + Prolocation data source
Joe Wein's jwSpamSpy program is used both by Joe's own systems and also Raymond
Dijkxhoorn and his colleagues at Prolocation to process
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL
> hitting. In a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater
> hitting SURBL for all spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I have
> a feeling if I clean up
On Thursday, January 6, 2005, 7:25:32 AM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> Of 284673 messages processed, 217538 were spam, 175941 hit at least one
> SURBL rule. So give me 80%. Best single anti-spam tool I've seen yet.
Thanks! :-) 80% sounds about right.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
htt
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 9:06:37 AM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Chris Santerre wrote:
Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL hitting. In
a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL for all
spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA.
On Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 9:06:37 AM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> Chris Santerre wrote:
>> Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL hitting. In
>> a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL for all
>> spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I hav
Chris Santerre wrote:
Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL hitting. In
a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL for all
spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I have a feeling if I clean up my
results a bit, that number would be even higher
Hi!
Okay, let me give you some real numbers from our inhouse mail for the
last week.. As you can see, half the top rules are network tests, so
people running without them (-L) are really missing out..
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RAN
>
> Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see
> SURBL hitting. In a non scientific manor, I average about 85%
> or greater hitting SURBL for all spam that doesn't get
> rejected by my MTA. I have a feeling if I clean up my results
> a bit, that number would be even higher.
>
Hi!
Its good that you look if its added allready, since only with THOSE
submissions we can add more on the lists ... :)
I have an idea for automatically listing emailed submissions. Suppose
the submissions IDs were checked via whois for who owns the domain.
If it is a name recognized as a spammer
Chris Santerre wrote:
Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL
hitting. In
a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL
for all
spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I have a feeling if I clean
up my
results a bit, that number would be even hig
>-Original Message-
>From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:53 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: quick poll on SURBL hit %
>
>
>From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>&g
From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi!
>
> > Very anecdotal, but of the last 20 messages scored as spam, only 1 of
them
> > did not hit on any SURBL's. On a daily basis about 2 or 3 per user, out
> > of an average of 200 to 300 non-spam messages delivered, were diagnosed
as
> > non-
Hi!
Very anecdotal, but of the last 20 messages scored as spam, only 1 of them
did not hit on any SURBL's. On a daily basis about 2 or 3 per user, out
of an average of 200 to 300 non-spam messages delivered, were diagnosed as
non-spam, and were not registered in the SURBL when delievered, but when
>-Original Message-
>From: Gary Funck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:30 PM
>To: SURBL Discussion List (E-mail); Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: quick poll on SURBL hit %
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>&
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:16 AM
>
> Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL
> hitting. In
> a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting
> SURBL for all
> spam t
Chris Santerre wrote:
Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL hitting. In
a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL for all
spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I have a feeling if I clean up my
results a bit, that number would be even higher
Chris Santerre wrote:
Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL hitting. In
a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL for all
spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I have a feeling if I clean up my
results a bit, that number would be even higher
19 matches
Mail list logo
