sa-stats.pl Sometimes part of the spamassassin package. You may have to search for it on your system, otherwise, it’s available via CPAN
> 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
