LuKreme wrote: > On 17-May-2009, at 06:32, Yet Another Ninja wrote: >> On 5/17/2009 2:09 PM, LuKreme wrote: >>> On 16-May-2009, at 21:25, Bill Landry wrote: >>>> LuKreme wrote: >>>>> grep EMAILBL /var/log/maillog.1 | grep -v "is spam" | wc -l >>>>> >>>>> ?? >>>> >>>> How is that going to work if you are telling grep to output everything >>>> that does NOT contain "is spam" (-v = select non-matching lines)? >>> Right. How many emails that were not otherwise tagged as spam >>> flagged EMAILBL. >> >> that's up to you to figure out on your site, with your traffic. > > The point of the original post was to see how often it was hitting > messages that were not otherwise spam on YOUR machine since you posted > numbers > > Of the 1891 messages that hit the EMAILBL how many of those were > messages that where not otherwise seen as "is spam"? Without that, the > numbers you posted don't indicate anything since we have a range from > (All 1891 messages were otherwise marked as spam) to (none of the 1891 > messages were otherwise marked as spam).
There seems to be a flaw in your logic. The search you did would only find messages that were flagged by EMAILBL but were not considered spam. I guess that's fine if potential FPs are what you are looking for. Bill
