[SURBL-Discuss] This ROCKS!
maddoc at maddoc.net
Fri Apr 30 13:47:39 CEST 2004
Justin Mason wrote:
> Doc Schneider writes:
>>I am on my days off and hope to get some type of stats gathering ditty
>>going. But not sure what stats folks want to see. I had some
>>conversations with Chris "The Big Evil One" and he had some ideas.
>>Am just not sure what direction to pursue.
>>I did join the dev list for SA and sort of got talked into checking the
>>docs for SA 3.0 which I'm slowly working on. Just checking them for
>>proper API coverage in the different modules it is using.
>>So my question to you folks is what sort of statistics would you like to
>>see? Number of rules hit, even if a ham (I always get hungry when
>>talking about ham and spam but I digress) or just total number and the
>>actual rules that are being hit for all spam? And isn't there something
>>already in SA that does these rules and hits? corporra(sic and too lazy
> Hi Doc -- cc'ing sa-dev, since it's really an SpamAssassin thing
> rather than a SURBL thing ;)
> I'm not sure if you mean measuring rule accuracy in advance to pick good
> scores, or reporting stats after the fact for sysadmins.
> For the first one, read:
> For the second:
> We recently added some additional stats output to spamd in SpamAssassin
> 3.0.0. This should improve the accessibility of info about rules
> being used during scanning for tools to summarise.
Thanks for cc-ing this to the dev list. I meant to do that but just got
busy writing and totally forgot.
So in SA 3.0 there will be some type of sysadmin stats available? If so
I'll just rethink what I was trying to do and focus on other things. 8*)
Does the Masscheck take into account multiple imap mailboxes? From the
looks of it it does.
More information about the Discuss