definition: messages per month?

[Martin Hepworth]

<x-flowed>
Eric

I keep my email gateway on a separate machine, if the gateway machine
gets compromised then all youe email is hosed, cf putting www server on
a separate machine/DMZ.

I tend to look at a couple of 'core' uses for our stats, ie the one how
tend to get alot of spam, and corelate full population stats from them.

Also 100% spam trap is almost impossible to achieve without FP's rate
being too high (ie getting FP's), I'd rather a couple of spams creep
though than miss the odd spam..

--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300


Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:31:32AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
>>Eric
>>I always use the 'envelopes' per month version myself...ie how many
>>actual messages (qf,df pairs - or whatever your MTA uses to store
>>messages in the queue) are processed.
>>Otherwise the stats go up the wall - hey my MS processed 2 billion
>>messages last month, when actually it only  processed two MTA queue file
>>message pairs!!!
>>I'm not concerned that a message had multiple recipients, I'm concerned
>>about the actual number of messages, which has a direct correlation to
>>the performance and size of the hardware required.
>
>
> Ok. this helps. One other concern with regard to hardware and
> performance ... imapd/pop access is on the same server here as
> smtp/mailscanner. In other's experience is user access to mail spools
> a performance concern? If so, then it might be interesting to keep
> counts for messages spooled to users' mailboxes and actually accessed or
> downloaded by MUAs as well as counts of messages scanned.
>
>
> I haven't seen anyone address the question of false positive/negative
> stats, yet. If someone claims "our mailscanner install blocks 98.6% of
> spam", how can they actually know that? Can you verify that every user
> has reported every miss in either direction?
>
> Or, are people quoting percentages like that based on sending a corpus
> of known ham/spam through the system?
>
> -Eric Rz.
>
> ------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
> To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
> 'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
> Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
> the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.

**********************************************************************

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).
</x-flowed>