Hi, Really what are the tools you're using and/or suggesting to generate such reports?
Regards, Leon -----Original Message----- From: Quinn Comendant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:41 AM To: SpamAssassin Users Subject: Re: Percentage of email that is spam after filtering? What is being used to generate these summaries? Q On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:03:55 -0500, Rick Macdougall wrote: > Ed Kasky wrote: >> At 02:00 PM Monday, 11/27/2006, Bill Randle wrote -=> >>> Like other posters, I don't have real stats on the amount of spam that >>> makes it past the filters, other than my own mailbox. I typically get >>> from 2-3 spam messages per day, on rare occasions, maybe 6-10. We use >>> blacklisting, the SARE rules, ImageInfo, FuzzyOCR and local custom >>> rules. >>> >>> Our overall stats for the last 24 hours are: Msgs %total %after rbl >>> total incoming messages: 84620 100% -- >>> rejected (cbl.abuseat.org, list.dsbl.org): 57624 68% -- >>> viruses (ClamAV): 183 0.2% 0.7% >>> spam (blocked): 22294 26% 83% >>> possible spam (sent to user mailbox): 252 0.3% 0.9% >>> clean (sent to user mailbox): 1828 2.2% 6.8% >>> >>> So, bottom line, of all the incoming mail, only 2.5% is actually >>> delivered to a customer mailbox. >>> >>> -Bill >> >> I thought I was the only one experiencing those numbers: >> >> Our overall stats since Sunday 4:00 am: Msgs %total %after rbl >> total incoming messages: 5535 100% -- >> rejected (cbl.abuseat.org, list.dsbl.org): 4366 78% -- >> Sendmail Reject - Pre-Greeting Traffic: 333 6% -- >> viruses (ClamAV): 23 0.4% 0.5% >> spam (blocked): 401 7.2% 9.1% >> clean (sent to user mailbox): 412 7.4% 9.4% >> > > Similar numbers here since 6am this morning on one of our 4 MX's > > Received 88952 100.00% > RBL Reject 61965 69.66% > Clam 167 0.19% > Spam Reject 4911 5.52% > Spam Pass 599 0.67% > Clean 13580 15.27% > > Bear in mind that this particular machine is also the outbound MX for > another mailserver for Yahoo, AOL, Sympatico, etc for scanning > purposes, so the Clean number is going to be a little high. > > We are also very proactive about infected local users (we're an ISP) > so out Clam numbers are a lot lower than say a year ago when we > weren't scanning. > > Regards, > > Rick >
