qqqq wrote:
> | >
> | > Easier said than done when you have a paying customer who wants this
> specific mailing.
> | >
> | Have you tried lowering the score of the spamassassin rules that are
> | getting hit?
> |
> | Jay
>
>
> I'll look at a couple of the examples and see what else is firing. I may
> have to tune URI_BLACK
> down a tad. I'll let you know.
For reference, here's my running config:
urirhssub URIBL_BLACK multi.uribl.com. A 2
body URIBL_BLACK eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_BLACK')
describe URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
tflags URIBL_BLACK net
score URIBL_BLACK 1.5
urirhssub URIBL_GREY multi.uribl.com. A 4
body URIBL_GREY eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_GREY')
describe URIBL_GREY Contains an URL listed in the URIBL greylist
tflags URIBL_GREY net
score URIBL_GREY 0.1
#adjustment to SURBL lists to control FPs with double-hits
meta URIBL_BLACK_OVERLAP (URIBL_BLACK && (URIBL_AB_SURBL || URIBL_JP_SURBL ||
URIBL_OB_SURBL || URIBL_WS_SURBL || URIBL_SC_SURBL))
score URIBL_BLACK_OVERLAP -1.0
------------
Reasons:
I've scored URIBL_BLACK at 1.5 due to it having the worst S/O of any URIBL other
than PH and GREY. (0.993 in the mass-check Theo posted)
I've scored GREY at 0.1 as an informational rule. It's S/O is so poor it is more
qualified to be a nonspam rule. ( 0.354 in the nightly mass-check Theo posted)
I've added the overlap deduction because the scores of all the other URIBL's
hosted by surbl.org are already balanced and tuned for accuracy without
URIBL_BLACK. Adding more rules offsets that balance, and this tries to
compensate.
The net effect of my configuration causes URIBL_BLACK to score 1.5 when it fires
alone, but drops it back to 0.5 when other SURBL lists fire.
