Quoting tomasz abramowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > sorry about the off topic, but maybe you guys at debian can fix what > my internet provider is talking about?
> No problem, spam is always interesting to look at (well, at least > for me ;). > But when I see that they use SBL/XBL yet they still pass on the > message to users then my stomach revolts ... it's like a waiter > at a restaurant serving a dish to a customer and saying "Please pay > attention, sir, not to eat that dead fly you will find in the food." If you want that changed, file a bug against Spamassassin. But I hope this bug will be closed without action. SBL/XBL has too many false positives to rank higher. I have tested a large number of RBLs trying to find those with zero false positives but still a high number of catches. I use the ones I selected directly in postfix where they reject absolutely. The current list is: cn-kr.blackholes.us dynablock.njabl.org bl.spamcop.net cbl.abuseat.org dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net taiwan.blackholes.us This list is most probably not what other people would use, so anybody who blindly copies it: don't blame me if you block mail that would have saved the world. If the sending IP address is ranked in SBL/XBL this is a good indication that the mail is Spam. But there are lots of other better criteria. HTH, Lupe Christoph -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.lupe-christoph.de/ | | "... putting a mail server on the Internet without filtering is like | | covering yourself with barbecue sauce and breaking into the Charity | | Home for Badgers with Rabies. Michael Lucas | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]