Re: RCVD_IN_XBL score

> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 05:09:05PM +0100, Axb wrote:
>> On 03/11/2012 04:50 PM, Michael Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Axb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/11/2012 04:02 PM, darxus@... wrote:
>>>>> On 03/11, Axb wrote:
>>>>>>> There are a number of reasons for the score generator to come up with this
>>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> agreed, and that doesn't mean it's 100% accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.  Well, I'd use "ideal" instead of "accurate".  But I fear fully
>>>>> comprehending the mind of the re-scorer.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you please check if any of those IPs are still listed ?
>>>>>> (especially XBL)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they aren't, then it's "reuse" which is causing the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> If any of the IPs are not still listed, then reuse is doing exactly
>>>>> its job, providing us with the accuracy of the lists at the time email
>>>>> is received.  I'm not interested in their accuracy after they've had
>>>>> ample opportunity to correct bad listings, which is not the accuracy
>>>>> anybody actually gets from spamassassin.
>>>>
>>>> yeah right - re-using stale data - sorry, I can't agree.
>>>>
>>>> XBL doesn't "correct" its listings.
>>>> If anybody does any correction, then it's the exploited/abused host's owner who's taken action and cleaned up/delisted
>>>>
>>>> If your windows box was exploited and listed in CBL for a day, and you submit a delisting request after you fixed , the listing will disappear within a couple of hours, the CBL/XBL worked as intended and that incident could be recorded in someone's corpus for a long time tho the incident has long been resolved and this would negatively influence the BL's score.
>>>>
>>>> Pretty obviously wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>> reuse  RCVD_IN_XBL
>>>>>> reuse  RCVD_IN_SBL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless we want to trust stale data, I think this should be removed
>>>>>> for a number of BLs  which have short lived listings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I object strongly.
>>>>
>>>> Then you don't understand how CBL/XBL works and how this method and low score is breaking its strength in tagging exploited sender IPs.
>>>> As we may use XBL to reject mail, the score should be accordingly high for those who chose NOT to reject yet want to get the full advantage of XBL's accuracy.
>>>>
>>>>> Although I still think it would be lovely to reduce the maximum age of
>>>>> emails used in re-scoring to something lower than 6 *years* for ham:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6386
>>>>> But that would require significantly more masscheck contributors, which
>>>>> would require allowing more masscheck contributors:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6694 (security
>>>>> problem not visible to everybody, possibly invalid, needs input from
>>>>> Warren)
>>>>
>>>> Anybody using HAM older than 3 years should voluntarily cleanup.
>>>> Patterns change and as with spam, HAM also goes stale.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but your thinking is wrong.  What Darxus says is completely correct.
>>
>> How can be it be right to reuse BL hits which have probably expired
>> along time ago?
>>
>> To me this is like saying your credit rating at age 40 is bad coz
>> you had a $5k debt at age 20
>>
>> Don't understand your logic.
>
> I have to agree with Axb here.
>
> If we are talking about _Spamhaus_ which most people have rejecting at SMTP
> time anyway, the current XBL/SBL scores are ridiculously low.
>
> A few lame livejournal/forum mails are allowed to make one of the most
> respected lists to be less effective?