Yes, probably 80-90% of the mails are rejected outright, but that still
leaves about 30-40cps (on average) that get through. The majority seem
to be various spambot addresses that haven't made it to blacklist
territory yet. Don't have a tremendous number of blacklists in place,
though: -r sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org -r bl.spamcop.net -r list.dsbl.org
Justice London
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 13:03 -0700, Eric "Shubes" wrote:
> Are you using something more than the stock blocklist? That can reduce your
> scanning load substantially.
>
> Justice London wrote:
> > Yeah, but it's better than just getting the message rejected, which
> > seems to be happening right now if something happens to spamassassin.
> > This is bad since our clients then call and complain to no end.
> >
> > Justice London
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 21:31 +0200, Janno Sannik wrote:
> >> seems dangerous since this could be exploited by hitting mailserver with
> >> lot's of spam and getting it to go through that way
> >>
> >> Justice London wrote:
> >>> Is there a way to get simscan/spamassassin to do a soft reject of
> >>> messages, say under high load situations where spamassassin isn't
> >>> responding properly? I have found that when spamassassin either can't
> >>> accept a new connection, for whatever reason, that the client is passed
> >>> a 451 error right away. Is there a way to instead just have simscan
> >>> fail the spamassassin test and just pass the message un-checked?
> >>>
> >>> Justice London
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
