Very good point made there :) I would assume that an RBL score would have to be arbitrary, based on general reports of false positives etc. I can't really see how it can be GA derived since, as you say, it would depend entirely on whatever IPs happened to be in the database when the test was run.
That said, presumably a vast number of IPs held in RBLs continue to remain as open relays for months and months, simply through them either being not longer actively administered. Daz > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vivek > Khera > Sent: 30 September 2002 14:52 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Osirusoft - trustworthy? > > > >>>>> "DQ" == Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > DQ> You need to GA score the RBL rules to achieve a good FP:FN ratio. > DQ> Without GA scoring of the RBLs, you will raise your FPs too much > DQ> because the rest of the GA scores are tuned to achieve a good FP:FN > DQ> ratio. > > I'm curious how you GA score the RBL hits. RBL's are by definition > dynamic with IPs going in and out of the lists all the time. It seems > to me the only reliable way to score it would be to see if the IP > being tested was in the RBL at the time the message was originally > received (or perhaps even a short while later), not at the time the GA > test is run, perhaps many months after it was sent. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk >
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
