With --reuse we can rename a rule once, should we use the rename trick to move
the  RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL hits over to the PBL rule?  Or are we too worried about
additional FPs?

I think I'd prefer not to, since the spamhaus guys expect that many ISPs will be
creating their PBL accounts in the next few weeks, and modifying their IP
ranges' data.  Given that, I'd guess after a few months the data in PBL will
look pretty different from the original data in NJABL-DUL.

I think we'd be better off ignoring NJABL-DUL and doing the PBL mass-checks
using "fresh" results, no reuse at all...

Is NJABL going to stop serving the DUL entirely?  If so, bummer.  If not, it 
should be kept as a rule.  NJABL is free for all, PBL is non-free for larger 
commercial entities.

yeah, I think they plan to stop serving it.

freqs:

http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20070113-r495852-n/RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL/detail

0.00000  13.5293   1.2629   0.915    0.66    0.00  RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL   

http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20070113-r495852-n/RCVD_IN_PBL/detail

0.00000  10.9582   1.2212   0.900    0.65    0.00  RCVD_IN_PBL   

: jm 1483...; svn commit -m "bug 5187: move RCVD_IN_PBL to main ruleset now that
it's been released; bug 5285: retire RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL in favour of RCVD_IN_PBL"
rules/20_dnsbl_tests.cf  rulesrc/sandbox/jm/20_zen.cf
Deleting       rulesrc/sandbox/jm/20_zen.cf
Sending        rules/20_dnsbl_tests.cf
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 497038.

for the record --


'Subject: NJABL announcement: dynablock & Spamhaus PBL
From: help mail.njabl.org
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:37:29 -0500 (EST) (16:37 GMT)
To: list njabl.org

With the advent of Spamhaus's PBL (http://spamhaus.org/pbl/), 
dynablock.njabl.org has become obsolete.  Rather than maintain separate similar 
DNSBL zones, NJABL will be working with Spamhaus on the PBL. Effective 
immediately, dynablock.njabl.org exists as a copy of the Spamhaus PBL.  After 
dynablock users have had ample time to update their configurations, the 
dynablock.njabl.org zone will be emptied.

Other NJABL zones (i.e. dnsbl, combined, bhnc, and the qw versions) will 
continue, business as usual, except that combined will eventually lose its 
dynablock component.

If you currently use dynablock.njabl.org we recommend you switch immediately to 
pbl.spamhaus.org.

If you currently use combined.njabl.org, we recommend you add pbl.spamhaus.org 
to the list of DNSBLs you use.

You may also want to consider using zen.spamhaus.org, which is a combination 
zone consisting of Spamhaus's SBL, XBL, and PBL zones.'

reopening -- from prelim results I think we might be better off reusing the
NJABL-DUL hits for PBL after all.  let's see once all the results are in

 20.152  30.9970   0.1499    0.995   0.67    0.00  T_RCVD_IN_PBL_WITH_NJABL_DUL
  1.312   2.0028   0.0372    0.982   0.73    0.00  RCVD_IN_PBL

: jm 40...; grep RCVD_IN_PBL ham.log  | grep -v RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL | wc -l
     648

: jm 41...; grep RCVD_IN_PBL ham.log  | wc -l
     877

: jm 42...; grep RCVD_IN_PBL spam.log  | grep -v RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL | wc -l
   14913

: jm 43...; grep RCVD_IN_PBL spam.log  | wc -l
  264044

the hit-rate is a lot higher on T_RCVD_IN_PBL_WITH_NJABL_DUL, and most of
the RCVD_IN_PBL hits (94.4%) also hit RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL.  looks good enough
to me.

: jm 458...; svn commit -m "bug 5285: reuse NJABL_DUL Dynablock hits as input
for RCVD_IN_PBL during the perceptron run" rules/20_dnsbl_tests.cf 
rulesrc/sandbox/jm/20_basic.cf
Sending        rulesrc/sandbox/jm/20_basic.cf
Sending        rules/20_dnsbl_tests.cf
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 504908.