On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Over 90% of the messages so rejected are clearly spam
>> (i.e. sent to a spamtrap mailbox) or have other problems.
>>
>> That doesn't seem like a particularly strong metric to
>> me. What's your overall spam/non-spam ratio?
>
> In 2012, 50% to date. My current count has 4 more spams than not.
> In 2011, 70% spam to 30% not. I no longer have statistics for 2010 or
> earler. I replaced my server with new hardware in February 2011.
>
> This counts only messages that make it to SpamAssassin scoring and are
> therefore accepted by the server. Messages rejected by the MTA for any
> reason do not get scored. For example, on some days, I have over 200
> connections (separate addresses) rejected due to not having forward-confirmed
> reverse DNS entries on the incoming clients.
So 90% spam is probably not unusually high for "all mail" - and I
wouldn't consider finding some attribute on 90% spam, 10% non-spam
email to be a particularly useful indicator that you should reject.
Unless you like to reject just because you can. Per rfc760 and a
concept assumed through the rfcs:: "In general, an implementation
should be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its
receiving behavior."
--
Les Mikesell
[email protected]
Mail to unknown users won't be in the above counts, nor will
SPF-failed messages (rejected directly at the "MAIL FROM" SMTP state),
etc. Of course, messages with malformed Received headers are rejected
by the MTA and not in the count either. I do not greylist, but I do
have a fake high MX entry that always tempfails. I do not retain my
mail rejection logs for longer than a week and delete them after I
have reviewed them so I don't have precise counts to share.
>
> I do note that more than 90% of my current spam is such because it's
> addressed to my spamtraps directly. I've received only about 10 spams this
> year which have made it into my inbox, and those were messages which received
> sn SA score above my threshold but under 10. Most of the time, the score is
> under 4 for non-spam and over 20 for spam, with this year's spam highscore
> being 83 (and a fraction).
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
> message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
>
> Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
> MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected]
> http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
