From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Dallas L. Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Does anyone mind if I summarize and post their results on the SURBL
> discussion list?
>
> http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
If you are just interested in URIBL_* hitrates.. here are 3
sets of results from 3 different networks and 3 different
levels of mail flow.
# perl ./sa-stats.pl -n 1000 -f spamd.log | grep URIBL
...
And grey is sort
of useless, too.
For your mail flow it appears so. And it also has its days... Cron
that report daily and watch it for a week or two.
<<jdow>> What I do instead is simply tell it where mailogs are stored
and have it run on the latest ten of them, the depth I store. I do
realize that's not cheating fair. But it gives a nice summation.
{^_-}
Black "ain't perfect" I note.
Agreed.. Assuming your 5 'ham' were truly 'ham' and not just spam that
your SA missed and uribl black hit. Being 'perfect' is our ultimate
goal... Pull the log entries that were ham that hit URIBL_BLACK and
see if they look legit.
<<jdow>> I can speak for Loren's email. But I have not caught the ham
marked as spam with BLACK in the header.
# grep URIBL_BLACK spamd.log | grep "result: \." | awk -F "mid=" '{print
$2}' | awk -F "," '{print $1}' | sort | uniq
I don't have a separate spamd log here. {o.o}
{^_^}
