On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:17 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
> --
>8 URIBL_BLACK 57241.12 78.360.00
>
> Unfortu
On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Just for comparison, below are some stats gathered quickly from 2
> different and entirely unrelated systems. Real mail stream, real users
> only, no traps.
Here are mine from yesterday while we are at it:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 18:50 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Your stats are certainly valuable and illustrative... but not reflective
> of the stats one would see in a MOST "real world" mail streams where:
>
> (A) the spams were sent to actual users (which would be a distinctively
> different mix of spa
On 2010-03-13 0:50, Rob McEwen wrote:
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
there are no users - its trap domains which have never had any real
users - ever.
no prefiltering except rejecting potential bounces and stuff leaking
from whatever may be on DNSWL and a coupleof other WLs.
Alex,
Your stats
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> there are no users - its trap domains which have never had any real
> users - ever.
>
> no prefiltering except rejecting potential bounces and stuff leaking
> from whatever may be on DNSWL and a coupleof other WLs.
Alex,
Your stats are certainly valuable and illu
On 2010-03-12 20:23, Rob McEwen wrote:
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
These stats are for small trap box which only accepts mail from bots
and rejects stuff listed by DNSWL and other public WLs. Since midnight
CET-
These are only URI BL tats - so you woun't see other dnsbls like
Spamcop, etc.
Alex,
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> These stats are for small trap box which only accepts mail from bots
> and rejects stuff listed by DNSWL and other public WLs. Since midnight
> CET-
> These are only URI BL tats - so you woun't see other dnsbls like
> Spamcop, etc.
Alex,
about those stats...
(1) Do tho
On 2010-03-12 16:48, Ray Dzek wrote:
I just received the dreaded URIBL "You send us to many DNS queries"
notice. This is fine. We have been growing and I am sure our
queries have gone up. But when looking at their data feed service
options the first thing I noticed was that there is no fee str
On 12/03/10 15:48, Ray Dzek wrote:
I just received the dreaded URIBL “You send us to many DNS queries”
notice. This is fine. We have been growing and I am sure our queries
have gone up. But when looking at their data feed service options the
first thing I noticed was that there is no fee structu
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 07:48 -0800, Ray Dzek wrote:
> I just received the dreaded URIBL “You send us to many DNS queries”
> notice. This is fine. We have been growing and I am sure our queries
> have gone up. But when looking at their data feed service options the
> first thing I noticed was that
I just received the dreaded URIBL "You send us to many DNS queries" notice.
This is fine. We have been growing and I am sure our queries have gone up.
But when looking at their data feed service options the first thing I noticed
was that there is no fee structure. I don't know about you, but
11 matches
Mail list logo
