On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:17:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Read a previous message by Duncan Findlay. He said that 39.2668% of > all the spam might be blocked by using the DSBL, but doing that you > would block 0.0185% of ham.
I just ran a quick test on my current email folders. At the moment I have very little email stored in my Debian folders (198 messages actually). I extracted IP addresses of machines connecting to master or murphy like this: $ cd path/to/debian/mail $ find -type f | while read f ; do formail -c -x Received < $f done | egrep 'by (murphy|master).debian.org' | perl -lne '/\[([0-9.]+)\]/ && print join(".", reverse (split /\./, $1))' | sort -n -u | grep -v '1\.0\.0\.127' That outputs 103 IP addresses. Adding perl -pe 's/$/.list.dsbl.org/' | while read s ; do host $s ; done to that command I get a match for 175.90.65.4.list.dsbl.org Searching for the matchin message I get: Subject: Someone for you. Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,REMOVE_PAGE,X_LOOP, X_MAILING_LIST version=2.55 I'm sure I don't have to show you the email to convince you that it's spam. Looking at my spam folder, I can extract 203 unique IP addresses (311 received emails) out of which 71 are *not* listed by list.dsbl.org. I call that impressive. Feel free to come up with your own numbers using your own received email. Now the question again: why does debian-admin and/or listmaster oppose to running this in warning mode? That'd be a much more accurate statistic since post-facto I can't tell if the IPs were added after observing the spam I'm testing with now, or if they were already present at the moment of reception. Marcelo