James Gray writes: > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:47 pm D Hill wrote: > > Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was from: > > > > From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Now you are using: > > > > From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > BOTH of those domains point to an MX that has a CNAME to: > > > > smtp.mas.viperplatform.net.au > > So I use one mail client and occasionally forget to set the correct profile > to > send as.. sorry. > > No. None of the domains have any references to smtp.mas... as an MX record. > They all point to mail.mas... and they all have a default TTL of 38400 for > the zone. > > Besides, this still doesn't change my original point that SORBS have a habit > of listing addresses (justifiably or not) then attempt to extract money to > remove the listing. That's just extortion, not a good RBL.
It's worth noting that SpamAssassin has *never* used the SORBS sublist that requires this payment. We do not endorse that "pay-to-remove" concept. Also, folks -- regardless of how RFC-anal his DNS records are, that doesn't change the fact that SORBS DUL is listing his IP space incorrectly. This is *definitely* a false positive for SORBS. So please stop rattling on about that end of things. Anyway -- the SORBS DUL sublist is still in SpamAssassin due to its success at hitting spam with few false positives. Compare their accuracy ratings against the nearest analogue, RCVD_IN_PBL: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20080322-r639965-n/RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL/detail http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20080322-r639965-n/RCVD_IN_PBL/detail SPAM% HAM% 36.2977 488419 of 1345591 messages 0.1094 87 of 79523 messages 0.997 0.91 0.00 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 66.7720 898478 of 1345591 messages 0.1823 145 of 79523 messages 0.997 0.87 0.00 RCVD_IN_PBL that's a 99.7% accuracy rating, and generally hitting on the low-scoring spam too, which is the most valuable. Having said that, it has a very low score; in set3 it provides only 0.91 points. That's the GA compensating for its false positives. Nowadays it's mostly subsumed into PBL: overlap spam: 91% of RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL hits also hit RCVD_IN_PBL; 49% of RCVD_IN_PBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL so it's likely that the PBL would compensate entirely for the loss of SORBS DUL, if we were to remove it. But we don't know. If you like, open a bug on our bugzilla suggesting that for the next rescoring run (for 3.3.0), we disable SORBS_DUL and see if accuracy survives ok, and we will try that out. --j.
