Mike Cardwell wrote: >> ACK. The initial test box was so lightly loaded some of the traffic was >> messages >> I sent it just so I didn't have to wait 20 minutes to capture something... >> >> And *those* were the ones most often missed-out. Given they had traversed >> under >> 20' of CAT5E @ 100 BT one hop of decent switch fabric, I'm not too fussed. >> >> OTOH, I'm watching P0f from an ssh session, no file-writes or other >> manipulation >> involved. > > I turned my OS logging back on a short while ago. I have an old script > to get some related stats: > > ======================================================================== > r...@haven:/etc/exim4/scripts# perl os_stats.pl > Connections: 147 > > Linux: accept:17, reject:1 > Solaris: accept:2, reject:4 > Unknown: accept:10, reject:1 > Windows: reject:112 > ========================================================================
r...@haven:/etc/exim4/scripts# perl os_stats.pl Connections: 489 FreeBSD: accept:1 Linux: accept:52, reject:2 Solaris: accept:4, reject:10 Unknown: accept:20, reject:10 Windows: accept:1, reject:389 1/389 for Windows ... I remember the ratio used to be bad, but I don't remember it being as bad as that! I wish I could just block Windows hosts altogether. I looked up that 1 email which was accepted to check if it was a spam that got past my filters, but it turned out to be a ham sent from a Windows box running hMailServer. -- Mike Cardwell (https://secure.grepular.com/) (http://perlcv.com/) -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
