value=50 /
add key=RemoteMailServer_Senderbase_Magnitude_Weight value=0 /
/appSettings
/configuration
- Original Message -
From: Markus Gufler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL's becoming worthless
: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL's becoming worthless...
Chuck,
Here some numbers from my side:
100k messages in the last 7 days
50.5% identified as legit, 49.5% as spam (viruses was filtered out before)
The best IP4R-based tests was
CBL (21%, 0.37%FP), SPAMCOP (21%, 0.47%FP) and XBL-DYNA (19%, 0.27
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:45 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL's becoming worthless...
-Marcus:
Here's my invuribl config file...
I add points for being on various URI lists up to a max of 200.
Subject tag
]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL's becoming worthless...
Scott,
What type of speed are you getting from using the invuribl? We
take in/out well over 70K emails per day on each server, 1 of them takes
in/out 150K. As I understand
, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL's becoming worthless...
Scott,
What type of speed are you getting from using the invuribl? We
take in/out well over 70K emails per day on each server, 1 of them takes
in/out 150K. As I understand it, it is very CPU intensive. Thanks
I was just checking some of my results on the RBL's and the spammers are
defintely getting smarter.
When I started using Declude in Feb 2004, Spamcop hit on 83% of all the spam
messages.
For June 2005, Spamcop hit on 48% of all spam messages.
Fiveten Spam dropped from 62% to 41% in the same
Chuck,
Agreeded. This is why URI filtering is essential now. From the SURBL site.
[URI Filtering] We feel this is a promising approach since it addresses
the core problem of spam most directly: the sites advertised in the spams.
Spammers have found ways to get around conventional RBLs by
Of Darrell
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:02 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL's becoming worthless...
Chuck,
Agreeded. This is why URI filtering is essential now. From the SURBL
site.
[URI Filtering] We feel this is a promising
Chuck,
Send me your global.cfg and $default$.junkmail that I can have a look to see
if there are additional tests that we can use, to help increase scoring on
spam.
David B
dbarker @ declude.com
www.declude.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL's becoming worthless...
Chuck,
Agreeded. This is why URI filtering is essential now. From the SURBL site.
[URI Filtering] We feel this is a promising approach since it addresses
the core problem of spam most directly: the sites advertised
URI blacklists are certainly making up the difference on my system.
But far more important, Sniffer from SortMonster.com is making the
biggest difference on my network.
Sniffer has the advantage of both URI filtering and traditional content
filters because Sniffer is picking up the content that
Less if you buy through Declude :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:56 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL's becoming worthless...
URI blacklists
Chuck,
Here some numbers from my side:
100k messages in the last 7 days
50.5% identified as legit, 49.5% as spam (viruses was filtered out before)
The best IP4R-based tests was
CBL (21%, 0.37%FP), SPAMCOP (21%, 0.47%FP) and XBL-DYNA (19%, 0.27%FP)
So they catch less then 50% of incoming spam
13 matches
Mail list logo
