On 3/1/2011 10:00 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2011/03/01 2:38 PM, [email protected] wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6534
Replying to list as I doubt this needs to be attached to the bug...
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110226-r1074804-n/T_RCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT_L1/detail
It has very high overlaps with MSPIKE_BL at 80%, PSBL at 73% and
HOSTKARMA_BL
at 89%.
Should overlaps with BL's not included in published rules really count
against it? It could certainly explain why I'm seeing better success
over here. Plus, what about tests for L2 and L3? Are those not included
somewhere?
This is a good point, however my point here is despite its strong
similarity to these other DNSBL's that have high safety ratings, it
seems UCEPROTECT isn't achieving a similar good safety rating. When I
looked into this a few weeks ago it seemed to be some constantcontant,
but also common foreign ham. I will be looking more in depth later this
month.
Warren
