Spam detection rates

[Pete Russell]

I dont see how its possible to measure. Unless users report (and you 
count) every single spam they receive that they shouldnt have.

I can tell you that my systems cathc more FPs and less spam than they 
did 6 months ago. Maybe its a sing i need fuzzy ocr and greylisting?

Hope the new MS and SA this month will cure some of it.


Randal, Phil wrote:
> We consistently get over 99.5% of spam too.
> 
> Last month we blocked around 260,000 at the sendmail level
> (cbl.abuseat.org RBL and GreetPause), and 400,000 in MailScanner.
> 
> Spam seems to be around 75% of total emails here.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Phil
> --
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info 
>> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf 
>> Of Gareth
>> Sent: 02 May 2007 13:26
>> To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
>> Subject: Spam detection rates
>>
>> I was wondering what sort of detection rates people are getting when
>> using Mailscanner.
>> Our old spamassassin 2.64 based system was only getting about 80% but
>> with Mailscanner and the latest software we seem to be getting over
>> 99.5% which is extremely good. False positives are very low aswell.
>>
>> We do tend to be very strict about pictures attached to emails as I
>> think we have a few rules which do the same sort of checks. Some
>> external people using the incredimail 'piece of cr**p' mail 
>> client get a
>> continuous score about 4.3 which leaves the AWL little room 
>> to bring the
>> occasional higher scoring mail back below the 5.0 threshold. It hasn't
>> caused any people to complain though.
>>
>> -- 
>> MailScanner mailing list
>> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
>> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>>
>> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
>>
>> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! 
>>