|
This is pretty interesting, but one
question – What is your hold weight set to? It seems that you are assigning a huge
negative value for the first test, and much smaller for the other two, nay
insight as to how you came up with these values? We are running into some of the same problems
here, and this is an interesting idea for a way around it. - greg From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox We just started something I've been thinking about for a
while: Negative weight tests to offset specific test failures for
well-known domains. For example, a large number of false positives we see
are from Earthlink, Mindspring, Sprint, Verizon, etc. Now you may be thinking, of course, these are large
providers with dial-up user bases, so you would expect a large percentage
of false positives to be from them...but hold on a minute. Many
of these large domains are being penalized in our system for routing or not
having abuse@ or postmaster@ addresses. Almost all of these would not
have ended up in the hold queue if they had not been so penalized...thus the
idea to figure out a manageable way to NOT penalize them for these technical
RFC violations. So, what we've done is to start filters to counteract the
weights for major tests that a few of these domains fail. By doing it
specifically for a particular domain, we reduce false positives but avoid
losing the effectiveness of the test on other domains. Anyway, attached zip are the filter files. As I
mentioned, they have just been started, so there are just a few domains in them
at present. At the top of the filter file are suggested guidelines on how
to use them. There are probably better ways to handle this, so I welcome
comments/feedback.
|
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Negative weighting filters to reduce ... Greg Birdsall
