> > I use it or I wouldn't have known how to use it. ;) > > > > Like most other DNS blacklists, I wouldn't trust it > completely. Whether > > something is "spam" depends largely on the perception of the person > > reviewing it. I don't know how you get in one list or another for > > mxrate, > > If you don't know their listing policy, what's the rationale in using > their list?
They have rationale. You can read it. They do not, however, as far as I know, state exactly what makes them think a message they receive is spam or legitimate. To quote them: "MXRate is not really a blacklist in the traditional sense. Our system analyzes data submitted using automated procedures. It calculates a probability score based on the overall message sending pattern of any particular server and that is used as a basis of an opinion as to whether or not the address is a source of spam. What we do is publish a recommendation based on that opinion. Certainly, we can publish a recommendation that the message be blocked or highly penalized, however we can also recommend that it simply be treated with suspicion, or even treated as a known source of legitimate mail." "MXRate does this differently. First, we do not accept subjective spam reports. Secondly, not only do we track spam, we also track legitimate email. This allows us to evaluate the current sending patterns of a mail server. In the example above, the ISP would undoubtedly have some statistics being maintained by us on the ratio of legitimate messages to spam messages, and their recent frequency. So while the spammer might have caused a temporary "block" recommendation, this would probably only last a few hours after the spamming stops." "So, in other words, our intention is not to provide a database of addresses of anyone who has ever sent spam, it is to provide a database of addresses currently sending spam." > ahah. so you have evidence that it fkags legit mail, but you still use > and recommend it??? Indeed I do. And SpamAssassin itself includes and uses by default a list based on SpamCop, which is notoriously unreliable at determining exactly what is spam and what is not, because it's based on the reports of average users many of whom don't understand the difference between "a mailing list I know longer want to receive" and "unsolicited bulk e-mail". Whether something increases the spam probability on some small percentage of legitimate e-mail isn't the determining factor in whether it's useful in determining the probability that a message is spam or legitimate. The SpamCop list is still useful because, it flags considerably more spam than ham. You wouldn't want to score it at 5.0, because there are false positives. But there's no reason why you can't use it. These lists are really (as far as I'm concerned) about the same as flagging certain words or phrases or message headers as "more likely to be in spam". > > So, if you use it, score it > > where it helps you increase or decrease the score, but > realize it will > > likely flag some real e-mail as "recommend block". It did here. So I > > treat it as "more likely to be spam" rather than "block > this e-mail". > > If this isn't Cargo cult, I wonder how to call it... So, in your world, if a rule, or blacklist ever hits on legitimate e-mail, it shouldn't ever be used again? Just curious... Bret
