Do others see this effect in their maillogs?

[Rick Chadderdon]

Duncan, Brian M. wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> I understand the directives and what they accomplish. (I thought I did
> at least)
>
> Isn't the log notation missing something still though?
>
> My log for RBL'ed messages says:
>
> to kattenlaw.com is cbl, MAPS-ALL, zen.spamhaus.org
>
> It looks like something needs to come after the "is" other then the RBL
> services that were hit.
>
> Something like, is high scoring Spam, cbl, MAPS-ALL, zen.spamhaus.org or
> is RBL'ed, cbl, MAPS-ALL, zen.spamhaus.org.  Etc..
>
>
> I was really only asking about this because I wanted to know if others
> had the same type of notation in their logs.  Since it's cosmetic, and
> does not effect my servers I am not that worried about it.

Yes, this is how things are noted in my logs as well.  I understand 
where you're coming from, but since logs are almost never grammatically 
correct, I've never really considered it a problem.  In fact, I'd rather 
a log file give me information as concisely as possible, as long as the 
information is complete enough to derive the missing info.  
Grammatically correct is usually not concise.

I prefer to reject from RBLs at the MTA, and my particular business 
model allows me to make this decision for my customers - so I don't use 
RBL checks in MailScanner.  Still, if I did, I would not need my logs to 
preface every entry with "is spam" when rejecting/marking/quarantining a 
message, nor, if space was at a premium, would I want them to.  Spam is 
stuff that SpamAssassin scored, cbl is cbl, etc.  I already *know* it's 
all "spam".

I suppose that if it were done the way you suggest, it might make it 
easier to grep your logfile for a count of "is spam" lines and get a 
quick total of all of your spam.  Hmmm...  Well, it's not something I 
need, but I can see why it would bother someone.  :)

Rick