The sa-stats.pl I refer to is here.
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/tools/sa-stats.pl. It’s not the
same as the ones shown in other posts. I don’t know what that is.
and has an output like this.
zeus:~ robert$ perl sa-stats.pl
Report Title : SpamAssassin - Spam Statistics
Report Date : 2016-03-11
Period Beginning : Fri 11 Mar 00:00:00 2016
Period Ending : Sat 12 Mar 00:00:00 2016
Reporting Period : 24.00 hrs
--------------------------------------------------
Note: 'ham' = 'nonspam'
Total spam detected : 22 ( 51.16%)
Total ham accepted : 21 ( 48.84%)
-------------------
Total emails processed : 43 ( 2/hr)
Average spam threshold : 3.00
Average spam score : 4.46
Average ham score : -2.10
Spam kbytes processed : 397 ( 17 kb/hr)
Ham kbytes processed : 147 ( 6 kb/hr)
Total kbytes processed : 545 ( 23 kb/hr)
Spam analysis time : 339 s ( 14 s/hr)
Ham analysis time : 366 s ( 15 s/hr)
Total analysis time : 706 s ( 29 s/hr)
Statistics by Hour
----------------------------------------------------
Hour Spam Ham
------------- ----------------- --------------
2016-03-11 00 0 ( 0%) 13 (100%)
2016-03-11 01 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 02 2 (100%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 03 4 (100%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 04 4 ( 57%) 3 ( 42%)
2016-03-11 05 6 ( 75%) 2 ( 25%)
2016-03-11 06 6 (100%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 07 0 ( 0%) 3 (100%)
2016-03-11 08 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 09 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 10 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 11 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 12 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 13 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 14 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 15 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 16 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 17 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 18 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 19 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 20 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 21 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 22 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
2016-03-11 23 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
Done. Report generated in 1 sec by sa-stats.pl, version 6256.
> On 10 Mar 2016, at 21:38, Erickarlo Porro <epo...@earthcam.com> 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 <dbf...@engineering.uiowa.edu
> <mailto:dbf...@engineering.uiowa.edu>> 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 NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
>
> 1 TXREP 13171 8.47 40.38 91.00 72.91
> 2 HTML_MESSAGE 12714 8.18 38.98 87.85 90.80
> 3 DCC_CHECK 10593 6.81 32.48 73.19 33.78
> 4 RDNS_NONE 10269 6.60 31.48 70.95 5.63
> 5 SPF_HELO_PASS 10070 6.48 30.87 69.58 23.41
> 6 URIBL_BLACK 9711 6.25 29.77 67.10 1.58
> 7 BODY_NEWDOMAIN_FMBLA 9550 6.14 29.28 65.98
> 1.64
> 8 FROM_NEWDOMAIN_FMBLA 9483 6.10 29.07 65.52
> 1.36
> 9 BAYES_99 8486 5.46 26.02 58.63
> 1.18
> 10 BAYES_999 8141 5.24 24.96 56.25
> 1.06
>
> TOP HAM RULES FIRED
>
> RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
>
> 1 HTML_MESSAGE 16473 9.13 50.51 87.85 90.80
> 2 DKIM_SIGNED 13776 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_NONE 9941 5.51 30.48 8.08
> 54.79
> 6 DKIM_VALID_AU 8711 4.83 26.71 7.99 48.01
> 7 BAYES_00 8390 4.65 25.72 1.84
> 46.24
> 8 RCVD_IN_JMF_W 7369 4.09 22.59 2.54 40.62
> 9 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL 6713 3.72 20.58 4.39
> 37.00
> 10 BAYES_50 6201 3.44 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM S/O
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1 T__BOTNET_NOTRUST 114907 60.32 86.81 42.66 0.5755
> 2 BAYES_99 109138 32.98 82.45 0.01 0.9998
> 3 BAYES_999 104903 31.70 79.25 0.01 0.9999
> 4 HTML_MESSAGE 90850 79.41 68.63 86.59 0.3456
> 5 URIBL_BLACK 90845 27.61 68.63 0.27 0.9942
> 6 T_QUARANTINE_1 90640 27.40 68.47 0.02 0.9996
> 7 URIBL_DBL_SPAM 79152 24.02 59.79 0.17 0.9956
> 8 KAM_VERY_BLACK_DBL 74301 22.45 56.13 0.00 1.0000
> 9 L_FROM_SPAMMER1k 73667 22.26 55.65 0.00 1.0000
> 10 T__RECEIVED_1 72413 42.60 54.70 34.54 0.5135
>
> OP HAM RULES FIRED
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM S/O
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1 BAYES_00 182674 56.03 2.11 91.97 0.0150
> 2 HTML_MESSAGE 171992 79.41 68.63 86.59 0.3456
> 3 SPF_PASS 136623 63.08 54.52 68.78 0.3457
> 4 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 130879 53.75 35.54 65.89 0.2644
> 5 T__RECEIVED_2 125492 53.76 39.62 63.18 0.2947
> 6 DKIM_SIGNED 114808 38.57 9.72 57.80 0.1008
> 7 DKIM_VALID 105385 34.70 7.16 53.06 0.0825
> 8 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 92951 29.90 4.56 46.80 0.0609
> 9 T__BOTNET_NOTRUST 84741 60.32 86.81 42.66 0.5755
> 10 KHOP_RCVD_TRUST 84623 26.44 2.19 42.60 0.0331
>
> Note how highly BAYES 00/99 ranked. What you don't see is that BAYES_50 is
> way down in the mud (below 50 rank).
>
> BTW, this is with a Bayes that is mostly fed via auto-learning. I occasionally
> hand feed corner cases that get mis-classified (usually things like phishes,
> or conference announcments that can look shakey).
>
>
> --
> Dave Funk University of Iowa
> <dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu <http://engineering.uiowa.edu/>>
> College of Engineering
> 319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
> Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
> #include <std_disclaimer.h>
> Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
>
> Robert Chalmers
> rob...@chalmers.com <mailto:rob...@chalmers.com>.au Quantum Radio:
> http://tinyurl.com/lwwddov <http://tinyurl.com/lwwddov>
> Mac mini 6.2 - 2012, Intel Core i7,2.3 GHz, Memory:16 GB. El-Capitan 10.11.
> XCode 7.2.1
> 2TB: Drive 0:HGST HTS721010A9E630. Upper bay. Drive 1:ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB.
> Lower Bay
Robert Chalmers
rob...@chalmers.com <mailto:rob...@chalmers.com>.au Quantum Radio:
http://tinyurl.com/lwwddov
Mac mini 6.2 - 2012, Intel Core i7,2.3 GHz, Memory:16 GB. El-Capitan 10.11.
XCode 7.2.1
2TB: Drive 0:HGST HTS721010A9E630. Upper bay. Drive 1:ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB.
Lower Bay
