The rulesemporium site appears to be down.
If anyone has a newer version, it might be good to post it somewhere? My site
for eg?
Robert
Sent from my iPad
> On 11 Mar 2016, at 04:17, David B Funk wrote:
>
> That's the output from Dallas Engelken's "sa-stats.pl" log analyzer.
> You feed it a segment of your spamd logs and it gives you
> those rule hit statistics.
>
> See: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/StatsAndAnalyzers
>
> Looking at that wiki page, I noticed that the copy available is v0.93.
> I've got v1.03
> Does anybody know what was the newest one last avaialable on the
> rulesemporium site? Anbody got something newer than v1.03?
>
> I've done a bit of hacking to my copy (such as adding the S/O ratio stats).
>
>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Erickarlo Porro wrote:
>>
>> I would like to know how to get these stats too.
>>
>> From: Robert Chalmers [mailto:rob...@chalmers.com.au]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 5:25 AM
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Missed spam, suggestions?
>>
>> Can I ask, how are you getting these stats please?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On 8 Mar 2016, at 05:11, David B Funk
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>>
>> I’ve been running with some daily training for a little over a week and
>> I’m seeing less spam in my
>> inbox. I’ve seen a few things slip through because bayes tipped them
>> below the default score, these
>> were two phishing emails.
>>
>> Here’s some rule stats for anyone interested:
>>
>> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
>>
>> RANK RULE NAMECOUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
>> %OFHAM
>>
>> 1 TXREP 13171 8.47 40.38 91.00
>> 72.91
>> 2 HTML_MESSAGE12714 8.18 38.98 87.85
>> 90.80
>> 3 DCC_CHECK10593 6.81 32.48 73.19
>> 33.78
>> 4 RDNS_NONE10269 6.60 31.48 70.95
>> 5.63
>> 5 SPF_HELO_PASS 10070 6.48 30.87 69.58
>> 23.41
>> 6 URIBL_BLACK97116.25 29.77 67.10
>> 1.58
>> 7 BODY_NEWDOMAIN_FMBLA95506.14 29.28
>> 65.98 1.64
>> 8 FROM_NEWDOMAIN_FMBLA94836.10 29.07
>> 65.52 1.36
>> 9 BAYES_99 84865.46 26.02
>> 58.63 1.18
>> 10BAYES_999 81415.24 24.96
>> 56.25 1.06
>>
>> TOP HAM RULES FIRED
>>
>> RANK RULE NAMECOUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
>> %OFHAM
>>
>> 1 HTML_MESSAGE16473 9.13 50.51 87.85
>> 90.80
>> 2 DKIM_SIGNED13776 7.64 42.24 13.81
>> 75.93
>> 3 TXREP 13228 7.33 40.56 91.00
>> 72.91
>> 4 DKIM_VALID 12962 7.19 39.74 11.93
>> 71.44
>> 5 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE99415.51 30.48 8.08
>> 54.79
>> 6 DKIM_VALID_AU 87114.83 26.71 7.99
>> 48.01
>> 7 BAYES_00 83904.65 25.72
>> 1.84 46.24
>> 8 RCVD_IN_JMF_W 73694.09 22.59 2.54
>> 40.62
>> 9 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL 67133.72 20.58
>> 4.3937.00
>> 10BAYES_50 62013.44 19.01
>> 25.56 34.18
>> Based upon your stats it looks like you need more Bayes training. Your Bayes
>> 00/99 hits should rank higher in the
>> rules-fired stats and BAYES_50 shouldn't be in the top-10 at all.
>> (of course if you've only been training for a week that would explain it).
>> For example, here's my top-10 hits (for a one month interval).
>> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
>> --
>> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM S/O
>> --
>> 1T__BOTNET_NOTRUST 114907 60.32 86.81 42.66 0.5755
>> 2BAYES_99109138 32.98 82.450.01 0.9998
>> 3BAYES_999 104903 31.70 79.250.01 0.
>> 4HTML_MESSAGE9085079.41 68.63 86.59 0.3456
>> 5URIBL_BLACK 9084527.61 68.630.27 0.9942
>> 6T_QUARANTINE_1 9064027.40 68.470.02 0.9996
>> 7URIBL_DBL_SPAM 7915224.02 59.790.17 0.9956
>> 8KAM_VERY_BLACK_DBL 7430122.45 56.130.00 1.
>> 9L_FROM_SPAMMER1k7366722.26 55.650.00 1.
>> 10T__RECEIVED_1 7241342.60 54.70
