On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:02:57 +1000
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> and many thousands more?
Like Karsten's message?
> sorry, a system that only works sometimes (or even most of the time) is a
> broken system.
How about "pretty much all of the time."
> > 4 a week here. Granted my volume seems to be lower than yours so lets
> > scale up. You get 25k/week, I get 2324 a week. Round to 2300 for easier
> > math. 2300/25k = 9.2% So, 4 * 10 (round up since its easier and adds,
> > not subtracts, to my total) = 40. At your mail load I'd get 40/week
> > delivered, tagged as spam by SA. The spam that gets through undetected
> > completely is a magnitude less. 4/month at your load would be about right.
> > Of course that is for my personal account. I did say it was 22/week total
> > for all account.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and there's the catch. like you, i have multiple accounts and multiple
> aliases pointing at my accounts. postmaster@taz.net.au for instance, which
> (in order to be RFC-compliant) isn't subject to most of my postfix access
> rules (although it still gets processed by spamassassin).
No, not like me. I have multiple USER accounts, just like you. The total
that get through to my PERSONAL mailbox at that time was a whopping *4* a
week.
> > Even so, 220 is 160 less than what you're pawing through.
> no, it's more. of the 382 that made it through last week, about half ended
> up in one of my mailboxes. the rest were my users' problem. half of 382 is
> 191.
And if you count only my personal mailbox (and associated aliases) and not
all the users my total is 4, scaled up to your volume of 40 which is 151 less
than what you're wading through.
> if you're talking percentages, then i know what percentage of spam that i
> reject (like you, i'm not counting false-negatives, there's not enough to
> count): 98.5% last week. the figure varies from week to week, but 98.5% is
> not at all unusual.
According to the stats that week, 97.4% with far less work. Of course the
remaining 22 were all tagged as spam, just not high enough to be rejected,
yet. And I did mention in that thread that I was most likely going to lower
the threshold even lower. IE, here's my adjustmet: edit sa-exim.conf, set
SAPermReject from 8.0 to 7.0 or 6.0.
> i have thousands of custom rules, however "hand-crafted" isn't exactly the
> right word. "scripted" is more accurate.
Wonder how many cycles those eat up.
> i think i know how to use my tools a lot better than you do.
Hardly. You put in far too much work for very little return.
> now run off and play. when you've worked on real mail servers under real
> loads, you'll be qualified to comment on my methods.
Sorry, already done that so I guess I am qualified.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpkRti_s8pAh.pgp
Description: PGP signature