On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:05:22 -0700, BC wrote: > At the suggestion of others here, I turned OFF greylisting last year, > after having used it for years before that. My spam level didn't > increase one bit. I think the RBL sites are pretty good at > identifying spam originations, so I use that method now.
So to check the usefulness of greylisting, I've done a rough study on our server. I've run three ten-day periods with different configurations, and processed the logs for each period using David Ramsden's SpamAssassin logfile analyser script [1]. The difference between greylisting enabled or disabled, all other configuration the same, is 2x the amount of messages received. During the period of greylisting, no false positives were reported by our users although they said their spam load was significantly reduced. It's hard to know from these number what the actual change in spam is, but I would venture to interpret the results and say greylisting is still helpful. You can see my spamdyke configuration here [2]. ===================================================================== Config 1: SA + rblsmtpd Total messages: Ham: Spam: % Spam: 90824 56264 34560 38.05% Average spam score : 11.34/4.78 Average ham score : -0.01/4.85 ===================================================================== Config 2: SA + spamdyke (no greylisting) Total messages: Ham: Spam: % Spam: 78271 63730 14541 18.58% Average spam score : 10.00/4.80 Average ham score : -0.05/4.85 ===================================================================== Config 3: sa + spamdyke + greylisting Total messages: Ham: Spam: % Spam: 39676 31763 7913 19.94% Average spam score : 13.31/4.84 Average ham score : -0.84/4.85 [1] http://www.sourcefiles.org/Log_Analyzers/sa-stats.pl [2] http://pastie.org/private/bzncofm9e0vhbez8kacnka Quinn _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
