Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: > >> >> That sample was 100% spam. I was not trying to point out FP rate >> problems, merely that overlap is in fact VERY common on surbl. >> >> And again, it's not the over-lap in-and-of-itself that's a problem. It's >> when the overlap matches nonspam that problems occur. I don't have any >> nonspam samples onhand with surbl overlap. Only surbl/uribl overlap. > > We get reports allmost daily, most of them are only listed in one > single list. So i dont share the feelings its a bad idea to > overscore... I can safely say its rather rare we get a FP notification > with lets say 3-4 seperate lists involved...
I don't think it's bad to overscore spam. I've never said that. I think it's REALLY bad to overscore rules which have potential to "group hit" nonspam.
