On Friday, January 14, 2005, 7:00:07 PM, Robert Menschel wrote: DQ>> But, once we skip a domain, its relative volume is going to drop DQ>> way off in the SURBL data.
> But that doesn't affect the validity of the 125 domains, does it? No, but the first cut at the top 125 was based on more limited data (less time covered). We were hoping to get a more accurate "125" by looking at a longer time period of 90 days instead of 10. In other words, we wanted to fine tune the data a little better, ignore some shorter-lived popular domains, like those from the U.S. election, etc. > Assume that the top 125 domains are stable and reliable and should > remain whitelisted (changes to that decision should be made manually, > and almost never). Let SURBL collect its new data, and look at the top > 50-100 domains. Assume that at least some of these first top 125 will > not be listed, since they aren't being SURBL queried. Don't drop the > 125, but simply add to the whitelist a number of the "new" top 100, if > warranted. It would work, but I think there was to be some kind of limit on the manual whitelist. IIRC 125 was arbitrarily chosen, but it happens to correspond almost exactly to the 50th percentile of ham domain hits. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
