On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 21:53 -0500, Chris wrote: > On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 04:11 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Sorry, no. :) The dates and numbers don't match, unless you didn't get > > any spam early this month. > Is this what you're looking for: > Starting point as of 13 May with plug-in - Spam: 97 > 21 May Spam: 10 Total 192 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > EMAILBL_TEST_LEM 0.50 0 11 0.00% 5.73% > > Those are not the total spam for the day but the cumulative spam from > one day to the next. Though the percentile if figured on the total Ah, yees. :) Thanks. I was missing the base before you enabled EmailBL. So that draws another picture than the per-month percentage above: 11 hits / 95 spam == 11.6% Out of curiosity, do you run any SMTP time checks or blacklists, rejecting mail before SA gets to see them? Given those numbers, I assume the answer is yes, and these stats don't include the bulk of spam or spam connection attempts. > I must have deleted your earlier post so I can't refer back to it. If > this is not what your refering to I guess I'm not understanding you > correctly. That would be this [1] post, though in a nutshell I was asking for finer grained numbers, split up by spam score <10, 10-15, 15+. Reason for that is, that I found EmailBL to specifically hit best in the low-scoring range, which is rare to find, yet exactly what we need. :) FWIW, I'm not involved in EmailBL, just curious to verify my observation. guenther [1] http://markmail.org/message/qku7o5xqnhiofnh2 -- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
