Jump to content

Leniency for super-high volume servers?


Recommended Posts

At least one hotmail server is currently listed:

Checkblock says it's been reported less than 10 times in the past week. My question / feature request is whether it's at all feasable for huge volume servers like hotmail to require many more reports in order to get listed?

Both the absolute number of spams, and the ratio of ham to alleged spam convey useful, and non-overlaping information right? Can the SpamCop blocklist use an algorithm to down-weight spam reports if the spam/ham ratio is very small? How to get that ratio is another question. As a rough cut, maybe use the, the number of unreported mails sent to spamcop.net recipients from a given ip to the number of reports for that ip coming from spamcop.net addresses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure who "Checkblock" is .... but yes, it is currently listed in the SpamCopDNSBL. Your question on the math and methods to get it there is a FAQ item, so there's not much reason to expound upon it here.

However, there appears to be much more to the story than just the listing ...

Note the the lack of rDNS mentiones.

Take a look at the data found on the Senderbase page ....

Date of first message seen from this address 2005-03-10 ... new server

Volume Statistics for this IP

Magnitude Vol Change vs. Average

Last day ........ 4.2 .. 2131%

Last 30 days .. 3.8 .... 945%

Average ........ 2.8

a bit confusing, if just recently seen, how'd the 2.8 average and last 30 day numbers get derived? But going with a "new" server, there may be something going on with the "recently discovered" bit of code in the parser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...