-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:44 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
This sounds like you are missing a point here.
And what point is that?
But it might help to
know a general makeup of the volume collection you have from the
standpoint if it was already pre-filtered. I guess you won't readily
know that without asking your contributors, but it would be good know
what level, if any, filtering was already done.
All reporting sites are doing at least some RBL filtering, and all
spam/not-spam flags are Spamassassin verdicts plus a few user-provided verdicts
thrown in.
For your collection analysis, you will need a majority of the system
with "always accept" first operations so that you can get the large
spectrum of bad vs good mail. Then you will need a criteria for what
is considered "bad."
I think that's unnecessary. If we can assume our reporting sites are typical,
then the results are typically meaningful. It just means the results have to
be taken in the same context in which the data were collected, which seems
reasonable to me.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html