> 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.
>
> (Although clearly you're doing better than RAZOR2_CHECK, and
> RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100, which are completely sucking in terms
> of accuracy on
> this test)
We are constantly getting "It wasn't us, it was an affiliate!" In which case we can argue if that was an FP for days.
As you mentioned, some could have been FNs. Our methods have changed slowly over time. I myself don't go as nuts, to cut down on FPs. But we have increased our "time to listing" greatly. Speed kills ;)
I haven't seen a URIBL FP on my systems in months. But we constantly see mailers asking for delisting, screaming "Whoah is us! You made a mistake, we are legit.....". 5 minutes of research reveals otherwise.
So what is the point of this messege........ I'm out of coffee :D
Chris Santerre
SysAdmin and SARE/URIBL ninja
http://www.uribl.com
http://www.rulesemporium.com
