At 11:17 13/05/2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
> I also did a bit of log grepping and thought some people here might find > the results interesting. WS and spamcop surbl lists are hitting nearly 50% > of my spam, and there's a considerable quantity of non-overlapping hits > between these two. All totaled the 3 lists are hitting 67.9% of my tagged > spam. The SURBL hosted version of big/midevil isn't performing very well > for me, but I'll keep an eye on it to see if it improves.
Chris mentioned some reasons for be, mostly that he's blocking most of his incoming spam using regular RBLs, so many aren't even reaching him.
I'm using sc, ws and be, and to be honest I notice hardly any hits with be, only just enough to convince me that its actually working ;)
Bill's ws list and the sc will differ because sc is based on dynamic data from filtered SpamCop URI reports, while Bill's is more of a hand-built list from a variety of sources. I too see that they catch different things sometimes, and they seem to complement each other pretty well.
Yep, good hits on both of those, I notice that the really blatent offenders (that pump out multiple copies of the same spam to each user) tend to show up very fast on sc, while the ws list has a lot of long term offenders...together they're very effective.
Regards, Simon
