> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 00:05 > To: Raymond Dijkxhoorn > Cc: jdow; users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists... > > Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: > > Hi! > > >>> > >>>> I consider that "highly similar" for JP, SC, AB, OB and WS. > >>> > >>> As similar as 30 and 40, and 0, .3 and 7 are, I suppose. > > > >> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any > inherit from > >> other lists or are they all separately maintained? > > > > They use different datasources and no cross links between them. If > > there is a real nasty one we could/would talk about it on > the private > > list but thats really sporadic. > > Untrue. AB and SC use a common data source, spamcop reports. > However, each has it's own processing/listing criteria and > each is separately maintained. > > And, realistically, since WS and uribl accept direct reports > from more-or-less anyone, their data sources could be > redundant with any other URIBLs depending on what the > > It's really straight forward for an end-user to report the > email to spamcop, then report the spamverized URI to WS and > URIBL_BLACK via web forms. > > Pickup on surbl's SC list appears to involve multiple reports > to spamcop, but there's still potential for common inputs. > > Let's see a show of hands.. How many people here have ever > filed a spam report with multiple lists, including doing > spamcop + either WS or URIBL. > > (raises own hand) >
FWIW, web submissions account for less than 1% (119 of 12652 listings) of URIBL data for the last 7 days. All submissions are reviewed, so I find it hard to believe that the FPs are coming in via this mechanism.. seeing that a human reports it (i hope) and a human reviews it. From what I see, FPs normally come from automation and over zealous mass adds. D
