On Friday 03 February 2006 21:58, John Fleming wrote:
> >
> > Using the latest file from rules emporium, I made the file execuatable,
> > then:
> >
> > ./sa-stats-1.0.txt -l /var/log/spamassassin/ -f spamd.log
> >
> > For help:
> > ./sa-stats-1.0.txt -h
>
> Thanks for your response! I am running 3
From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Original Message-
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Gene Heskett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> And if you can find it on SARE, it was invisible when I looked last
> night.
>
You
> -Original Message-
> From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 3:44 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
>
> From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Gene Heskett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And if you can find it on SARE, it was invisible when I
looked last night.
You must not read follow-up posts very well. See Chris Purves post
which followed up your "I cant find it" post.
Or to m
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Purves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
John Fleming wrote:
Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
sa-stats.pl on their site. It is
> -Original Message-
> From: Gene Heskett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:56 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
>
> On Friday 03 February 2006 00:30, jdow wrote:
> >From: "
On Friday 03 February 2006 00:30, jdow wrote:
>From: "John Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
>sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
>gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
>reg
From: "John Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
regrettable.
I have the "other sa-stats.pl" working well on my syst
John Fleming wrote:
Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
regrettable.
I have the "other sa-stats.pl" working well on my system. But I'm
apparen
Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/01/2006
08:53:22 PM:
[snip]
> I'd recommend adding a rule for jp.surbl.org
if you don't already
> have one. It's generally our best performing list currently.
A
> sample rule is mentioned under "jp - jwSpamSpy + Prolocation
data
> source" on our Quick
Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
regrettable.
I have the "other sa-stats.pl" working well on my system. But I'm
apparently not pointing the "
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 02 February 2006 00:36, jdow wrote:
Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
regrettable.
From an earlier posting b
On Thursday 02 February 2006 00:42, jdow wrote:
>From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> On Wednesday, February 1, 2006, 8:16:18 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
>>> 1146URIBL_PH_SURBL 1 0.000.02
>>> 0.060.00
>>>
>>> I figure I could pull PH and lose nothing.
>>
>> PH
On Thursday 02 February 2006 00:36, jdow wrote:
>Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the
> sa-stats.pl on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It
> gives individual score breakdowns. The name coincidence is
> regrettable.
Unforch Joanne, I was not able to find a lin
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wednesday, February 1, 2006, 8:16:18 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
1146URIBL_PH_SURBL 1 0.000.020.060.00
I figure I could pull PH and lose nothing.
PH is phishing domains and IPs. They're probably worth blocking
even
From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Does anyone mind if I summarize and post their results on the SURBL
> discussion list?
Wrong tool. Visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and find the sa-stats.pl
on their site. It is the one most of us are using. It gives individual
score breakdowns. The name coincidence is regrettable.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Heskett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Greetings;
One o
On Wednesday, February 1, 2006, 8:16:18 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
> 1146URIBL_PH_SURBL 1 0.000.020.060.00
> I figure I could pull PH and lose nothing.
PH is phishing domains and IPs. They're probably worth blocking
even if your small sample size doesn't show m
> -Original Message-
> From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:16 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
>
> From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone mind if I summarize and post their results on the
SURBL discussion list?
http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
If you are just interested in URIBL_*
Greetings;
One of this threads messages prompted me to locate this script and run
it, which I found in the
/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.1.0/tools/sa-stats.pl
as if it hadn't been installed. Maybe it hasn't? Unforch, it would
appear that stats are not being kept as all categorie
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:52 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
>
>
> Does anyone mind if I summarize and post their results on the
On Wednesday, February 1, 2006, 8:43:30 AM, Andy Jezierski wrote:
> Here's mine after making it through the RBL lists & Greylisting:
> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
>
> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES
From: "Andy Jezierski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here's mine after making it through the RBL lists & Greylisting:
Congratulations on the staggeringly poor Bayes training you have. I've
not seen it reported worse short of utter failure.
{O.O}
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I personally have a higher-than 1 in every 500 FP rate from
URIBL_BLACK.
# grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |wc -l
3992
# grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |grep BSP_TRUSTED |wc -l
9
Most of those come from hits against emails sent by
ediets.com's subscri
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday, January 31, 2006, 3:20:33 PM, Chris Chris wrote:
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
---
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 8:52 am, Jeff Chan wrote:
>
> Does anyone mind if I summarize and post their results on the
> SURBL discussion list?
>
> http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
Have at it Jeff. If you need more, I'll be glad to provide.
--
Chris
Registered Linux User 2
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 3:03 pm, Evan Platt wrote:
> Ok just found the sa-stats program.. Rather than reinvent the wheel, is
> there a cronjob someone has already written that would say generate a
> nice index per day, update it at midnight, i.e. something so it might
> generate a index page
Ok just found the sa-stats program.. Rather than reinvent the wheel, is
there a cronjob someone has already written that would say generate a nice
index per day, update it at midnight, i.e. something so it might generate
a index page of say:
Stats for 01-01-2006
Stats for 01-02-2006
.
and then
Matt Kettler wrote:
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
# grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |wc -l
3992
# grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |grep BSP_TRUSTED |wc -l
9
Most of those come from hits against emails sent by
ediets.com's subscriber services. While this site is heavily
ad laden, it is a subscriber s
To: 'Matt Kettler'
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
> I personally have a higher-than 1 in every 500 FP rate from
> URIBL_BLACK.
>
> # grep URIBL
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:10 PM
> To: Dallas L. Engelken
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
>
> Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
>
&
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
>>
>> # grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |wc -l
>>3992
>>
>> # grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |grep BSP_TRUSTED |wc -l
>> 9
>>
>> Most of those come from hits against emails sent by
>> ediets.com's subscriber services. While this site is heavily
>> ad laden, it is a subscr
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
>
> Dallas Engelken wrote:
> > Ok, Lets
Dallas Engelken wrote:
> Ok, Lets take the following sample data
>
> Email: 2766
> Spam: 975
> Ham: 1791
>
> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
> --
> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
> ---
Here's mine after making it through the RBL lists
& Greylisting:
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RANK RULE NAME
COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL
%OFSPAM
%OFHAM
-
Title: RE: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
> I personally have a higher-than 1 in every 500 FP rate from
> URIBL_BLACK.
>
> # grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |wc -l
> 3992
>
> # grep URIBL_BLACK maillog |grep BSP_TRUSTED |wc -l
> 9
>
> Most of those come fr
On Tuesday, January 31, 2006, 3:20:33 PM, Chris Chris wrote:
> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
>
> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
>
>1
Email: 1556 Autolearn: 679 AvgScore: 3.66 AvgScanTime:
4.27 sec
Spam: 480 Autolearn: 148 AvgScore: 14.65 AvgScanTime:
3.71 sec
Ham: 1076 Autolearn: 531 AvgScore: -1.24 AvgScanTime:
4.52 sec
Time Spent Running SA: 1.84 hours
Time Spent Processing
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:03 PM
> To: jdow
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
>
> jdow wrote:
> > From: "Dallas Engelken&qu
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:45 PM
> To: jdow
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
>
> jdow wrote:
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
1BAYES_99 141 4.94 73.06 93.382.3
jdow wrote:
> From: "Dallas Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 07:37 -0600, DAve wrote:
>>> And mine, note that these are *post* MailScanner and RBLs, which are
>>> running on my mail gateways. By the time SA gets the mail I've pruned
>>> anywhere from 45% to 75% of the messa
From: "Mike Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL
%OFSPAM %OFHAM
1
HTML_MESSAGE 45870 5.13 27.72 70.37
55.36
Wait... so 27% of all mail is HTML, 70% of s
From: "Dallas Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 07:37 -0600, DAve wrote:
And mine, note that these are *post* MailScanner and RBLs, which are
running on my mail gateways. By the time SA gets the mail I've pruned
anywhere from 45% to 75% of the messages, depending on the day.
jdow wrote:
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Kristopher Austin wrote:
>> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
>> %OFHAM
>>
>>1HTML_MESSAGE 45870 5.13 27.72 70.37
>> 55.36
>
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Jackson wrote:
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
Kristopher Austin wrote:
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL
%OFSPAM %OFHAM
1
HTML_MESSAGE 45870 5.13 27.72 7
No bug.
Percent of all mail is indeed, percent of all mail.
Percent of all spam is the number of spam messages that triggered this
rule divided by the total number of messages marked as spam. The percent
of ham is the number of ham messages that triggered this rule divided by
the total number of
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kristopher Austin wrote:
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
%OFHAM
1HTML_MESSAGE 45870 5.13 27.72 70.37
55.36
Wait... so 27% of all mail is H
> -Original Message-
> From: Dallas Engelken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:42 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
>
> The %OFMAIL category is misleading because its comparing the hit
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL
%OFSPAM %OFHAM
1
HTML_MESSAGE 45870 5.13 27.72 70.37
55.36
Wait... so 27% of all mail is HTML, 70% of spam is HTML, and 55% of
ham is HTML?
That
Mike Jackson wrote:
> Matthew van Eerde wrote:
>> Kristopher Austin wrote:
>>> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL
>>> %OFSPAM %OFHAM
>>> 1
>>> HTML_MESSAGE 45870 5.13 27.72 70.37
>>
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 07:37 -0600, DAve wrote:
> And mine, note that these are *post* MailScanner and RBLs, which are
> running on my mail gateways. By the time SA gets the mail I've pruned
> anywhere from 45% to 75% of the messages, depending on the day.
>
> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
> RANK RULE NA
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 16:45 -0600, wrote:
> Here is mine:
>
> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
>
> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
> %OFHAM
>
>
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 11:20 -0600, Kristopher Austin wrote:
> Hmm, I guess that's a question for Dallas. This is the version I'm
> using:
> # file: sa-stats.pl
> # date: 2005-08-03
> # version: 1.0
> # author: Dallas Engelken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> # desc: SA 3.1.x log parser
>
> I don't seem to b
Kristopher Austin wrote:
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
%OFHAM
1HTML_MESSAGE 45870 5.13 27.72 70.37
55.36
Wait... so 27% of all mail is HTML, 70% of spam is HTML, a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kristopher Austin wrote:
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
%OFHAM
1HTML_MESSAGE 45870 5.13 27.72 70.37
55.36
Wait... so 27% of all mail is H
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:48 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Post your top 10 from sa-stats
Kristopher Austin wrote:
> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES
sa-stats.pl, there is more than one version. I got mine from the Sare
Ninjas as I use daemon tools to run spamd. I don't know where the other
one can be found or what the difference is.
Google, or use these list archives for more info.
I've had one off-list request for this so far, so I'll se
Kristopher Austin wrote:
> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
> %OFHAM
>
>1HTML_MESSAGE 45870 5.13 27.72 70.37
> 55.36
Wait... so 27% of all mail is HTML, 70% of spam is
This is after greylisting and sbl-xbl checks:
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
%OFHAM
1HTML_MESSAGE
http://www.rulesemporium.com/programs/sa-stats.txt
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
> -Original Message-
> From: DAve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 January 2006 15:39
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Post your
Clay Davis wrote:
How are you guys obtaining these stats?
sa-stats.pl, there is more than one version. I got mine from the Sare
Ninjas as I use daemon tools to run spamd. I don't know where the other
one can be found or what the difference is.
Google, or use these list archives for more inf
How are you guys obtaining these stats?
Thanks,
Clay
>>> On 1/31/2006 at 8:53:01 am, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bowie
Bailey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
> RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
%OFHAM
> RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 38578
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 38578 5.50 56.87 87.970.71
RAZOR2_CHECK37597 5.36 55.43 85.731.10
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 34487 4.92 50.84
And mine, note that these are *post* MailScanner and RBLs, which are
running on my mail gateways. By the time SA gets the mail I've pruned
anywhere from 45% to 75% of the messages, depending on the day.
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
I use the other sa-stats script, which I modified to show stats on the
rules:
Top spam rules:Ham: Spam: % Ham: % Spam:
--
RAZOR2_CHECK 90 1098 4.32 68.33
RAZOR
67 matches
Mail list logo
