> Define "bypass first level"? Are you suggesting that for every 1 ham you > deliver, you deliver 10 spams into user's mailboxes? Or do you do further > filtering?
I defined it in the part you did not quote! First level, MTA level: check helo, sender domain, IP <-> name maps and also greylists ! These reduce 30000 incomings to 3000. Then these 3000 goes trough other filters: SA, antivirus, etc. 300 of these 3000 are really ham, the other 2700 are spam. I did not say that SA efectively selects the 300 and the 2700 ! if that was true we are not discussing in this list ! what I tried to say is that after the first MTA checks I get the % I told from the begining. 300 is 10% (ham) of 3000 and 2700 is 90% (spam) of 3000. That is the volume that really goes to filtering with SA. So if I have 90% chance of spam why not inverting the logic to solve the puzzle instead of trying to solve it with the same logic when the %s were the oposite? This is the idea I brought to the list. It is just an idea. I ve never said I will solve the FUSSP ! I feel attacked when you say that in a quite pedantic/ironic way! > I suspect that for the type of filtering you're talking about, the only > numbers that matter are the amount of ham you currently deliver into user > mailboxes and the amount of spam you currently deliver. What stage in your > spam filtering catches messages (if you have multiple stages) isn't > particularly relevant, all that matters is what the user sees. answered
