>-----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----- >> 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 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. > > >> -----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 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. > >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 >manually checked later, their offending URL's had been registered in at >least one, and often several, SURBL's. SURBL's are definitely >workling.
Nice. Ryans numbers look good as well. I think Jeff's magic threshold number was 88%? Our response times are getting really good. I've had numerous submissions that trigger on SURBL! We've got some ideas for that last 10-12% ;) --Chris
