Good point, mea culpa. Yes, I guess the low false positive rate doesn't actually justify believing that the the URL has a high likelihood of actually being mal

Good point, mea culpa. Yes, I guess the low false positive rate doesn't actually justify believing that the the URL has a high likelihood of actually being malicious. The correct wording should probably be that the low false positive rate means that non-malicious urls are unlikely to be sent out. I'll fix this.