On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:19:25 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> wrote:
We understand your philosophical objection. Providing hard evidence
of FNs will go much further towards making your point than name
calling will.
The name calling being?
Alright, let me amend that: Providing hard evidence of FNs will go much
further towards making your point - and getting the rules fixed in a
useful manner - than will repeated accusations that the SA devs are taking
bribes to weaken SA.
And phrasing it as a question doesn't make it any less of an accusation,
given it keeps being repeated after reasonable explanations have been
provided.
At the moment there's insufficient _hard data_ to support the contention
that the reputation whitelists are assisting FNs to a great degree. The
data from masscheck suggests the impact of the reputation whitelists is
neutral to very slightly positive (in terms of reducing FPs). If you feel
this isn't justified, if you're seeing a lot of FNs that can be laid at
the feet of a reputation whitelist rule, then please feed that hard data
into the masscheck corpora so that the scoring process can take it into
account.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bother," said Pooh as he struggled with /etc/sendmail.cf, "it never
does quite what I want. I wish Christopher Robin was here."
-- Peter da Silva in a.s.r
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 days until Christmas
