All mail treated as spam?

[Matt Kettler]

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Remy de Ruysscher wrote:

> Julian, Denis, Matt,
>
> Thanks for the quick response! It's working perfectly now.
>
> Any suggestions on which spam lists to use?

As  I said before... IMO you should use none. I have yet to find any RBL
to be low enough in FPs.

If I stopped caring about FPs,  I might use XBL, as it came in with a
1.000 S/O in SA 3.0's set1 mass-checks. Same with DSBL.

CBL and blitzed are redundant with XBL. XBL meta-lists both of them.

SA 3.0's S/O for a couple other lists:

0.994    SPAMCOP
0.992    SORBS-DUL
0.985   SBL

(For reference a S/O of 0.985 means that 98.5% of emails which hit the
list were spam, and 1.5% were nonspam. The higher the S/O, the lower the
FPs.)

To me, anything with a S/O of less than 0.999 isn't even worth
considering for a pure-block criteria. More than 1 in 1000 hits being a
FP is too many for me when used with this kind of absolute treatment.
Really, I'd prefer a SO of 0.99995 (1 FP in 20k hits) or higher, but the
SA statistics would round even 0.9996 (1 in 2.5k) to 1.000

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the Wiki (http://wiki.mailscanner.info/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!