Marc Perkel wrote: > So - who wants to try feeding the system data? That helps make the > system more accurate for everyone. To feed me data you need to run a > small bash script that I will provide you all it does is send a string > to a port on my server. > > To report a spam you run ip-report spam 1.2.3.4 > > To report a nonspam you run: ip-report ham 5.6.7.8 > > The idea being that you report only those that you are highly confident > in. Since the system runs on totals and percentages it can take some > error and still be accurate. I am especially interested in the nonspam > reports as this helps keep the blacklists accurate. >
Marc, In case you have been reading only selectively, several folks have responded with rather less-than impressive results in first-round tests. The early indicators are that best-case, your lists duplicate well-known acl tests or other established and trusted RBL. Worst case, they return irrelevant data, or support actions not beneficial. JMNSHO, but I see that as a conceptual or 'scoring' issue, not a lack of sufficient data. Missing a white/yellow/black entry is 'invisible' to some parts of a testing phase. Serving up entries that do not add value - or worse- increase falsing, won't be alleviated by more entries. It is better *accuracy* and a reduction in duplication of other RBL in the entries you DO have that is needed. Otherwise, one would be ahead to concatenate several of the present top-scoring RBL's and be done with it. As is common already in Exim acl's Time to pull back and do some basic work. Bill -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
