On 11/02/11 06:59, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Steve, any comment on the previous post?
Sorry - but I was busy yesterday and waiting for a reply from Blaine.
I don't think it is a good idea to enable the URI rules in masscheck
unless Blaine has approved of this. He will suddenly be whacked by
millions of queries on Saturday and that could be nasty if he isn't
expecting it.
It was my understanding that multiple SEM lists were already being
included in the weekly masscheck. I have no objections to it and have
plenty of capacity to handle the queries.
--Blaine Fleming
SEM Admin
I'm going ahead with the several changes I suggested but keeping the
URI rules disabled for now.
I will update my rules with the correct naming; I've already run a local
network mass-check last night and I'm seeing the results I expected
SEM_FRESH, SEM_FRESH_10, SEM_FRESH_15 all score better than URIBL_RHS_DOB:
OVERALL SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME
0 25000 424 0.983 0.00 0.00 (all messages)
0.00000 98.3323 1.6677 0.983 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %)
15.639 15.9040 0.0000 1.000 0.85 0.00 T_SMF_SEM_FRESH_15
15.623 15.8880 0.0000 1.000 0.85 0.00 T_SMF_SEM_FRESH_10
10.954 11.1400 0.0000 1.000 0.83 0.00 T_SMF_SEM_FRESH
9.271 9.4280 0.0000 1.000 0.81 0.00 URIBL_RHS_DOB
Regards,
Steve.
