Dallas Engelken wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: qqqq [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 14:07 >> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Latest sa-stats from last week >> >> Email: 561313 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 6.77 >> AvgScanTime: 2.41 sec >> Spam: 209359 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 16.99 >> AvgScanTime: 2.30 sec >> Ham: 351954 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 0.70 >> AvgScanTime: 2.48 sec >> >> Time Spent Running SA: 376.39 hours >> Time Spent Processing Spam: 133.76 hours >> Time Spent Processing Ham: 242.62 hours >> >> TOP SPAM RULES FIRED >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES >> %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 1 URIBL_BLACK 163397 7.09 >> 29.11 78.05 0.50 > > Nice. > > How does that Queen song go?? We... are... ;) >
I would be proud of those numbers Dallas.. However, I'd also take them as a warning of areas needing improvement. URIBL has the highest spam hit rate, but you nonspam hit-rate is more than 5 times that of JP, your closest competitor in the world of uridnsbl's. 1 URIBL_BLACK 163397 7.09 29.11 78.05 0.50 5 URIBL_JP_SURBL 118251 5.13 21.07 56.48 0.09 Given that your spam hit rate is 1.5 times that of JP, compared to the 5 times higher nonspam rate, it suggests JP is doing a whole lot better in the accuracy department. (note: I do realize this can be biased by overall FNs in SA. Some of those 0.50 might be SA FN's. That said, such FNs would likely also affect other URIBLs.) This isn't to say that URIBL_BLACK isn't useful, or that you guys aren't doing a good job. However, this is good evidence you guys are doing great, but you do still have some areas that could use improvement. (Although clearly you're doing better than RAZOR2_CHECK, and RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100, which are completely sucking in terms of accuracy on this test)
