Re: Mail server load

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Dennis Gearon wrote:

> holy S**T!!

Particularly the 'Passed' number. Now I'm not subscribed to all of the lists
but I am on -general, -hackers and a couple of others like -interfaces and yet
I would say that the volume of email I'm seeing from the lists is far lower
than normal _not_ more by a factor of 3-ish.

BTW, I wasn't suggesting the virus emails I get come through the lists, was
just refering to the harvesting of my email address by the virus.

[Tom's numbers are absolutely amazing. I seem to be up to around 60 per minute
now]

>
>
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> > 16:00 ...
> >
> > neptune# awk '{print $7}' /var/log/amavisd | sort | uniq -c
> >  285 BAD
> > 1807 BANNED
> > 12289 INFECTED
> > 11731 Passed,
> >    5 SA
> >    1 turned
> >
> > Here's a normal day:
> >
> > neptune# cat /var/log/amavisd.o | grep "Aug 17" | awk '{print $7}' | sort
> > | uniq -c
> >  332 BAD
> >   13 BANNED
> >  938 INFECTED
> > 3792 Passed,
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk> writes:
> >>
> >>>Yesterday you had almost 1 for 1 valid email. By then I think I was getting
> >>>about 3-4 per valid email but since then it's sky rocketed and it looks more
> >>>like 30+ per 1 valid message.
> >>
> >>FWIW, this is what I see in traffic to an address I've had to abandon
> >>because of spam:
> >>
> >> 488 Aug 8
> >> 433 Aug 9
> >> 435 Aug 10
> >> 426 Aug 11
> >> 504 Aug 12
> >> 458 Aug 13
> >> 469 Aug 14
> >> 390 Aug 15
> >> 433 Aug 16
> >> 371 Aug 17
> >> 520 Aug 18
> >>36473 Aug 19
> >>35808 Aug 20
> >>
> >>It's about 3pm local time here, so by midnight the stat for today will
> >>probably be nearly double yesterday's total.
> >>
> >>The spam traffic had been around 2K/day at the beginning of the year,
> >>but tapered off to around 500 as you see above.  This spike is ten times
> >>the highest I've seen before.  If I were actually downloading this crap,
> >>and not rejecting it at the SMTP handshake, my DSL line would be
> >>saturated :-(