> -----Original Message-----
> From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:28 PM
> To: jdow
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Over-scoring of SURBL lists...
>
SNIP
>
> also, when someone's filter misses spam, the common answer is 'use
> SARE". but it seems to me that SARE is not managed (they don't seem to
> care about false positive reports). worst, all SA docs suggest using
> external rules, without warning about the dangers....
>
What?!
We have a forum. How many times have you posted FPs in it? Its more common to post them here on this list. We have always discussed SARE issues here as long as it didn't become too much traffic. It never has, and has completely disapaited over time. Thats not SAREs fault!
Not care about FPs?! Good grief! If you have one OUNCE of an idea of how much testing goes into rules!! WHy do you think the new Stock rules took so long? Old days we'd whip out a new ruleset in 2-3 days! This one took almost 2 months!! SARE is trying to work closer with SA devs. Which means we have to all out eliminate every FP or Theo and his friends will beat us with a 2x4! You ever see JM mad? No, you haven't! Because he takes out his aggression at night, dressing like the pink ninja, and beating on the SARE people :)
SARE, URIBL, and SURBL do not have your mail! We can only act on FPs that are reported.
If you think there is overscoring, then its simple, ZERO out all URIBL/SURBL scores. Use a meta so that if it hits on >2, you score it.
I personally only use ws.surbl.org and black.uribl.com. (I only use the rest for testing.) I can tell you those 2 typically overlap by 85%! And we don't share sources!
--Chris
