|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > spamassassin-dev archives|
On 3/1/2011 10:00 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> On 2011/03/01 2:38 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Replying to list as I doubt this needs to be attached to the bug...
>> It has very high overlaps with MSPIKE_BL at 80%, PSBL at 73% and
>> at 89%.
> Should overlaps with BL's not included in published rules really count
> against it? It could certainly explain why I'm seeing better success
> over here. Plus, what about tests for L2 and L3? Are those not included
This is a good point, however my point here is despite its strong
similarity to these other DNSBL's that have high safety ratings, it
seems UCEPROTECT isn't achieving a similar good safety rating. When I
looked into this a few weeks ago it seemed to be some constantcontant,
but also common foreign ham. I will be looking more in depth later this