>-----Original Message----- >From: Simon Byrnand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:32 PM >To: Jeff Chan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [semi-OT] SURBL praise and stats > > >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 ;) >
LOL, yup. Which is why it will be changing for the better. Combining powers with these other URL nutz is fun ;) Even My personal spamtrap isn't seeing many BE hits like it used to!!! Go figure that one! Either my block RBLs are doing a great job keeping up, or spammers have smartened up and aren't spamming my company much anymore. I'll have to check the stats. I don't use any spamtrap addresses. I only use spam sent to the company. In the near future it will all come together very nicely. --Chris
