On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 22:53 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> > From: Karsten Bräckelmann
> > More precisely: If that rule-set still would be generated, it would be a
> > sub-set of bl.spamcop.net.
>
> It is a ranked chunk of the top 200 spammers, not just a subset. It
> could even make sense to score a mail based on both 70_sc_top200 *and*
> bl.spamcop.net: this way the top 200's would earn some more points...
I was kind of hoping you'd jump on that. :)
Yes, you're right, it does imply a more serious category. However, I
don't believe it's worth scoring both *as-is*, with the 3.0 for the top
200 static list. An additional score might be worth it, though. (Dunno
for sure, depends on the average SA score of messages sent by those
relays.)
Also, the static list will always lag behind. So it would be best to
have it coded in some way in the bl.spamcop.net response.
> bl.spamcop.net doesn't give any hint about a source rank in the SC db...
Unfortunately. ;)
> > It died. And in fact, died *years* ago. As you can see two clicks away
> > from the link you posted, it became superfluous long ago and has been
> > deprecated. Just see the description of the rule-set:
> > So, I'd say delete your copy of that stale file immediately.
>
> A stale file is a stale file. But is it that much stale the idea as a
> whole? I mean, the "top 200 spammers" one.
Probably not, and it'd suit the SA way perfectly. More evidence, higher
score.
However, I believe the idea of a static file in this context, updated
"sparsely", is stale. Having the BL return different codes for "listed"
and "top ranking" would be much preferable.
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
