[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: CrossAssassin results

In article <[🔎] 20040410221745.GA5853@keid.carnet.hr> you write:
>On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 07:24:26PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
>> >> We are getting about 700 nonspam messages a day to the BTS, and about 30
>> >> spams a day are making it past spamassassin.
>> >
>> >This is reverse from how it's supposed to be used -- the mail should first
>> >go through CA and only then through SA. Why did you do it the other way
>> >around?
>> All the messages are going through both crossassassin and
>> spamassassin.  I'm using the spamassassin score to whitelist messages,
>> since there are a significant number of non-spam messages that are
>> sent to four or more bugs.
>How many?

$ egrep '^  ok .* ([4-9]|[1-9][0-9]+)$' /org/bugs.debian.org/log/spamscan.log | wc -l

70 since crossassasin was enabled about 44 hours ago.

The one nonspam that got caught was reinjected after I added a new
spamassassin rule (making it score < 0) so is included in the 70.  (It
was sent to request, and I had not examined messages going to

$ egrep '^  spam [0-3]\.' /org/bugs.debian.org/log/spamscan.log | wc -l

244 spams were caught by crossassassin in the same period.

Blars Blarson			blarson@blars.org
With Microsoft, failure is not an option.  It is a standard feature.

Reply to: