* Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [07-30-07 15:27]: > Interesting - but with RBLs you sometimes have innocent senders tarred > with the same brush as the spammers, so if it's problematic to ban based > on the RBLs.
rbl blocked >1000 posts the 28th and >600 yesterday. I correspond with several people who have isp's listed and just add them to /etc/postfix/access and they have no problem with refusals :^) > Count on it, some law office in Brazil will send an urgent and > business critical message, and be banned due to an unfortunate choice > of ISP. Managers will be angry. In a number of environments we've > removed RBLs as a front line sanity check because, like SPF, they > sometimes block important and legitimate messages. In other words, > we're decided to use SPF and RBLs as factors in spamassassin scoring, > rather than a binary decision at the perimeter. The other sanity > checks are already enough to block more than half the attempted > messages from even getting to the spamassassin servers. > > For home use fail2ban is probably fine though - aunt myrtle won't > complain if her message is delayed. guess you just need to use the abilities of postfix :^) -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
