On 2011-06-15 mouss wrote: > Le 14/06/2011 23:21, Ansgar Wiechers a écrit : >> My rationale is that no matter how reliable a single source is, they >> can still be wrong at times. Getting a second opinion helps >> mitigating these cases. [...] > now consider: > P1 = listed on zen > P2 = listed on spamcops > > do you really think that > P1 & P2 > is any better than > P1 OR P2 > ? > > explain why?
Because (P1 || P2) >= (P1 && P2) for all P1, P2. I'm trying to reduce my FRR. I am aware that this does increase my FAR. > do you believe P1 and P2 are independent? Yes, I do. Because P1 and P2 are maintained by independent entities (at least AFAIK), and I'm concerned about false positives, i.e. entries that were added by mistake. I do assume that two independent entities won't make the same mistake at the same time. [...] > not convinced yet? now replace P2 with korea.services and try to > argue. then try with P2 = sorbs. etc etc. Why? I'm talking about policyd-weight, not an arbitrary list of RBLs. There seems to be some misunderstanding on your part about what policyd- weight actually does. Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning." --Joel Spolsky
