Re: is anybody using ...

From: Todd Lyons <tlyons_at_ivenue.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:02:18 -0700

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:21 PM, John Wood <john+opendkim_at_charpa.org> wrote:
>> # grep Repu /usr/local/etc/opendkim.conf
>> ReputationFail                500
>> ReputationPass                -100
>> ReputationReject      1001
>> ReputationRoot                al.dkim-reputation.org
>>
>> I want to see how it compares to others' settings.
> Until now, I've just set defaults (and not rejected). However I think
> that something like:
>
> ReputationFail   200
> ReputationPass  -100
> ReputationReject 1001 (If you really wanted to use this like an RBL, I'd
> say anything over 250 or 300)

Nice, thanks for the comparison.

> Might be OK. It is hard to tell from the explanation on
> dkim-reputation.org if the spam to reputation ratio is one-to-one or, in
> short, how exactly the reputation number is calculated. If I had to

That was my conclusion too, I couldn't quite figure out what the numbers meant.

> guess, it looks like the first increment is 100 (either way) and after
> that ... I'm not sure.
>
> Can someone with a vastly larger amount of data do the same grep above
> so we can see a nice spread of reputation results?

Since I turned this on the logs for "Oct 30 04:03:08" to "Nov 2
19:57:02", so about 4.5 days on this server:

CentOS49[root_at_smtp1 ~]# grep x-dkim-rep /var/log/maillog | grep =neutral | wc -l
13022
CentOS49[root_at_smtp1 ~]# grep x-dkim-rep /var/log/maillog | grep =pass | wc -l
160
CentOS49[root_at_smtp1 ~]# grep x-dkim-rep /var/log/maillog | grep =fail | wc -l
149

Regards... Todd
-- 
If Americans could eliminate sugary beverages, potatoes, white bread,
pasta, white rice and sugary snacks, we would wipe out almost all the
problems we have with weight and diabetes and other metabolic
diseases. -- Dr. Walter Willett, Harvard School of Public Health
Received on Thu Nov 03 2011 - 03:02:28 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 29 2012 - 23:20:21 PST