How are the results stacking up against your other RHSBL tests? Very promising. Near the top of the class for RHSBL tests.
Here are my results: >From 11/11/2004 throught 11/22: CatchallMails 53741 total 40835 spam (76%) AHBL-Domains 4580 total 4188 spam (91.4%) Mailpolice Bulk 10629 total 10558 spam (99.3%) Mailpolice Porn 20 total 20 spam (100%) RFCI badwhois domain 1326 total 1105 spam (83.3%) RFCI badwhois tld 2228 total 1705 spam (76.5%) RFCI bogus mx 816 total 752 spam (92.3%) RFCI DSN 2312 total 2282 spam (98.7%) RFCI No abuse 8187 total 6578 spam (80.4%) RFCI No postmaster 5915 total 5225 spam (88.4%) SecuritySage 1731 total 1652 spam (95.5%) Sorbs BadConf 191 total 191 spam (100%) Sorbs Nomail 0 total SURBL Multi 7957 total 7921 spam (99.5%) Looking at the .5% of the SURBL-Multi that fell under my hold category, the bulk of these 36 definitely fall into the grey area of could be spam, might be legit. E-mail promoting training, surveys, compliance seminars and such. None of the .5% looks to be solidly legit. Starting 11/20 I broke out the tests and was looking at them individual... >From 11/20 Noonish through 11/22: SURBL Multi 1741 total 1733 spam (99.6%) SURBL Abuse Butler 11 total 11 spam (100%) SURBL Bigevil 1585 total 1577 spam (99.5%) SURBL Spamcop 46 total 46 spam (100%) SURBL Outblaze 928 total 928 spam (100%) I don't believe the Jon Wein and the Phish are testable on their own. I haven't received an hits on jp.surbl.org. I did download Jon Wein's domains and Mailfrom's from his website and put them into my DNS for rhsbl and mfbl testing. Yesterday since 10 AM I had Jon Wein Domain 573 total 573 spam (100%) Jon Wein Mailfrom 1 total 1 spam (100%) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as RHSBL > Hmmm, that could possibly render some decent results if spammers use the > same domain in the "MAIL FROM:" address in the SMTP envelope as they us in > the URI listed in the body of the message. How are the results stacking up > against your other RHSBL tests? > > Bill > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 2:59 PM > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as RHSBL > > > I know it is not the intended use of the SURBL list, but is anyone else > using the SURBL test as a RHSBL test? > I just figured if the URL is used for spam, do I really want to be > receiving e-mail from that domain? > So far it has been > 99.5% effective. > > I'm just curious to see if anyone else has tried it? > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
