On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:45:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: >Hmm, so we have 3 pieces of evidence that it isn't spam, four that it >is (all of which are from blacklists), the blacklist scores were enough >to get the message scored as spam, and yet it wasn't spam. > >Are we sure we want to be investing this much trust in RBLs, at least >for this mailing list? Or is there a mountain of spam that hasn't made >it to the list thanks solely to the RBL rules that makes this false >positive worth the trouble?
I've been collecting data for the last month or so using two spam filtering tools (spamassassin and a home-grown one that we already use for our private lists). After I've analysed that data, I'm planning to use one or both of those filters to tag or drop mail sent to our public lists, and remove the subscriber-only posting restriction. As can be seen from the spamassassin-tagged messages that got through, we're not yet filtering based on that information. All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that the number of false positives has been relatively small compared to the number of valid positives. I need to assess now many valid positives were attributable to the RBL matching before coming to any conclusions about that. David -- David Dawes Release Engineer/Architect The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes _______________________________________________ Xpert mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
