Anyone using

Logan Shaw lshaw at
Thu Sep 7 16:27:23 IST 2006

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Res wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Dennis Willson wrote:

>> A large number of the Spam sending computers never retry. They don't have 
>> the time or queue capacity to store email for retry so any error including 
>> temp errors cause them to give up and move on to the next email in their 
>> list. So SA would never get a chance to scan something that was never 
>> received...
> thats not what he was saying, unless we are looking at this from two very 
> different angles, it comes down to he should never have seen them as clean 
> messages at all, never, ever, nudda, regardless of greylisting or not, else 
> he has a very large amount that was never marked as spam by SA, rmeember he 
> did say "clean messages"

Yes, he was saying that, before greylisting, 12-15% of the
traffic gets marked as clean.  Presumably that is because
12-15% of the traffic IS clean, and the rest is not.  Then
after greylisting, 80% of the traffic got marked as clean.
Presumably that means 80% of it IS clean.

In other words, the proportion of spam coming in was previously
about 15% ham to 85% spam; after greylisting it was more like
80% ham to 20% spam.  80% are getting marked as ham because
80% are ham.  20% are getting marked as spam because they are.
SpamAssassin's hit rate (as a proportion of the total number
of messages per day) went down because the amount of spam
went down.

   - Logan

More information about the MailScanner mailing list