> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 14:50 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Latest sa-stats from last week > > Dallas Engelken wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: qqqq [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 14:07 > >> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > >> Subject: Latest sa-stats from last week > >> > >> Email: 561313 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 6.77 > >> AvgScanTime: 2.41 sec > >> Spam: 209359 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 16.99 > >> AvgScanTime: 2.30 sec > >> Ham: 351954 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 0.70 > >> AvgScanTime: 2.48 sec > >> > >> Time Spent Running SA: 376.39 hours > >> Time Spent Processing Spam: 133.76 hours > >> Time Spent Processing Ham: 242.62 hours > >> > >> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES > >> %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> 1 URIBL_BLACK 163397 7.09 > >> 29.11 78.05 0.50 > > > > Nice. > > > > How does that Queen song go?? We... are... ;) > > > > I would be proud of those numbers Dallas.. However, I'd also > take them as a warning of areas needing improvement. > > URIBL has the highest spam hit rate, but you nonspam hit-rate > is more than 5 times that of JP, your closest competitor in > the world of uridnsbl's. > > 1 URIBL_BLACK 163397 7.09 > 29.11 78.05 0.50 > 5 URIBL_JP_SURBL 118251 5.13 > 21.07 56.48 0.09 > > Given that your spam hit rate is 1.5 times that of JP, > compared to the 5 times higher nonspam rate, it suggests JP > is doing a whole lot better in the accuracy department. > > (note: I do realize this can be biased by overall FNs in SA. > Some of those 0.50 might be SA FN's. That said, such FNs > would likely also affect other URIBLs.) > > This isn't to say that URIBL_BLACK isn't useful, or that you > guys aren't doing a good job. However, this is good evidence > you guys are doing great, but you do still have some areas > that could use improvement. >
thanks, i think. ;) our fp ratio for ham has always been hanging at that level. i think thats a good sign. it means the data in our zones that are causing those ham hits have not changed, and no one has notified us that they need removal. doesnt worry me a bit. we welcome your delist requests if you actually find a FP (that we can agree on) on black.uribl.com. :) d
