> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:03 PM > To: jdow > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats > > jdow wrote: > > From: "Dallas Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 07:37 -0600, DAve wrote: > >>> And mine, note that these are *post* MailScanner and > RBLs, which are > >>> running on my mail gateways. By the time SA gets the mail I've > >>> pruned anywhere from 45% to 75% of the messages, > depending on the day. > >>> > >>> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED > >>> RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL > %OFSPAM %OFHAM > >>> 1 URIBL_BLACK 162360 8.88 55.25 88.86 2.10 > >> > >> is that 2% ham hits really missed spam or are you having false > >> positives due to URIBL_BLACK?? > > > > I am inclined to think there are a very few false > positives, one every > > couple thousand or so. Spam that manages to sail through, > here, do not > > seem to get marked with any BL rules as a general rule. > That is why it > > scores 3.0 rather than a higher number. {^_-} > > I personally have a higher-than 1 in every 500 FP rate from > URIBL_BLACK. > > # grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |wc -l > 3992 > > # grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |grep BSP_TRUSTED |wc -l > 9 > > Most of those come from hits against emails sent by > ediets.com's subscriber services. While this site is heavily > ad laden, it is a subscriber service. > >
Hi Matt.. If you think it would be a better candidate on grey, you are welcome to submit a list change request. D
