Charles Sprickman a écrit : > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Willy De la Court wrote: > >> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:24:17 +0100, Clunk Werclick >> <clunk.wercl...@wibblywobblyteapot.co.uk> wrote: > [snip] >>> reject_rbl_client no-more-funn.moensted.dk >>> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net >>> reject_rbl_client dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net >>> reject_rbl_client dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net >>> reject_rbl_client dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net >>> reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs.net >>> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcannibal.org >>> reject_rbl_client spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net >>> reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org >>> reject_rbl_client b.barracudacentral.org >>> permit >> [SNIP] >> >> wow a lot of rbls. I used to use some of these but got a lot of >> complaints >> so i'm sticking with just spamcop and spamhaus. > > I'm still figuring things out, and have not really went very deep into > spam prevention at this point. My question about the rbl rejects at the > smtp level is whether it's possible to only apply this to certain > domains/accounts without resorting ot using a policy daemon. I'm > guessing no, but that may just be my old qmail pessimism. :) >
if it depends on client, helo, sender or recipient, then you can use restriction classes.
