Graham Murray wrote: > Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> All that said, I can't see why you'd want to do anything else with DCC. >> The FP rate on DCC, even with the defaults of |999999 for fuzz counts, >> is significant. In the SA 3.1.0 set3 mass-checks, DCC_CHECK had a S/O >> of| 0.979, meaning that 2.1% of email matched by it was nonspam. >> > > Is that with using DCC 'out-of-the-box' or after whitelisting received > mailing lists and other regular solicited bulk senders, as recommended > by DCC? > > I do not know for sure, however I suspect it's a mixture.
That said, the DCC whitelisting approach is really only practical for small sites. I think it would be most appropriate for the SA mass-checks to be based on DCC's performance without any whitelisting. I administer SA for over 100 users, all of whom have different bulk senders. I whitelist some of them, and also handle them on a post-FP basis when reported, but there's no way I can keep track of all of the thousands of legitimate bulk senders at my site. Now picture the problems faced by someone who administers an email system with 10,000+ users. Since SA is really targeted at server-side use, it needs to be focused on some of the practicalities of large-scale deployment.
