Question about why we blocked DNSWL

> well, same thing hapened with some blacklists in the past, which
> resulted to high number of FP's.
>
> While FNs mean (much/all) mail not to be detected, FP's are uch worse.
>
> I wonder why SA disables DNWSL rules, with this logic blacklists, not
> whitelists, should be disabled...
>

The logic is that we do not publish rules that knowingly produce errant
scores. Whether those scores are positive or negative has little impact
on that policy.

DNSWL is working to reduce/eliminate that issue which I am very happy about.

• This message: [ Message body ]
• Next message: Kevin A. McGrail: "Re: DNS{B,W}Ls and blocking (was Re: DNSWL will be disabled by default as of tomorrow)"
• Previous message: David F. Skoll: "Re: DNS{B,W}Ls and blocking (was Re: DNSWL will be disabled by default as of tomorrow)"
• In reply to: Matus UHLAR - fantomas: "Re: DNSWL will be disabled by default as of tomorrow"
• Next in thread: Noel Butler: "Re: DNSWL will be disabled by default as of tomorrow"

• Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]