Re: Blocked via Spamhaus
Am 04.09.2014 um 18:23 schrieb LuKreme: dwl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[2;3]*-3 swl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[12;13]*-3 AFAIR someone posted a few months ago that those lists are empty. Has that changed? Nope. They are still empty. I just checked my fresh data feed and they only have one test record. On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Alex JOST jost+postfix...@dimejo.at wrote: Am 04.09.2014 um 18:23 schrieb LuKreme: dwl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[2;3]*-3 swl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[12;13]*-3 AFAIR someone posted a few months ago that those lists are empty. Has that changed? -- Alex JOST
Re: Blocked via Spamhaus
--On Thursday, September 04, 2014 11:23 AM -0600 LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote: About 95% of the rejections/blocked from postscreen show up as blocked by zen.spamhaus.org in the logs even though I have several other RBLs checked by postscreen. RBL rejections are generally done in order listed. You list zen first, so it is tested first. If it gets rejected by that RBL, then there is no reason to evaluate any further RBLs. Thus if you see anything being blocked by something other than zen, it means it isn't in the zen list, but is listed elsewhere. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Server Architect Zimbra, Inc. Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Re: Blocked via Spamhaus
LuKreme: How does post screen decide which RBL to list in the log? It blames the DNSBL with the largest weight. The initial postscreen implementation blamed the DNSBL that replied first. That was considered misleading, especially when that DNSBL contributed very little to the total score. Wietse
Re: Blocked via Spamhaus
Quanah Gibson-Mount: --On Thursday, September 04, 2014 11:23 AM -0600 LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote: About 95% of the rejections/blocked from postscreen show up as blocked by zen.spamhaus.org in the logs even though I have several other RBLs checked by postscreen. RBL rejections are generally done in order listed. You list zen first, so postscreen queries DNS[BW]Ls in parallel. The blame is based on the DNSBL weight, as described in my other follow-up. Wietse
Re: Blocked via Spamhaus
On 04 Sep 2014, at 10:44 , Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: LuKreme: How does post screen decide which RBL to list in the log? It blames the DNSBL with the largest weight. The initial postscreen implementation blamed the DNSBL that replied first. That was considered misleading, especially when that DNSBL contributed very little to the total score. Thank you. In the case of a tie does it list both or the first one to respond or the the first one listed? -- Beautiful dawn / Lights up the shore for me / There is nothing else in the world I'd rather see with you.
Re: Blocked via Spamhaus
--On Thursday, September 04, 2014 1:47 PM -0400 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: postscreen queries DNS[BW]Ls in parallel. The blame is based on the DNSBL weight, as described in my other follow-up. Ah, sorry, I should have noticed postscreen vs postfix. ;) --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Server Architect Zimbra, Inc. Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Re: Blocked via Spamhaus
LuKreme: On 04 Sep 2014, at 10:44 , Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: LuKreme: How does post screen decide which RBL to list in the log? It blames the DNSBL with the largest weight. The initial postscreen implementation blamed the DNSBL that replied first. That was considered misleading, especially when that DNSBL contributed very little to the total score. Thank you. In the case of a tie does it list both or the first one to respond or the the first one listed? I make no promise of what happens. When two equal-weight DNSBLs produce the same response, then it should not matter which one responds first or last. Wietse
Re: Blocked via Spamhaus
Am 04.09.2014 um 18:23 schrieb LuKreme: dwl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[2;3]*-3 swl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[12;13]*-3 AFAIR someone posted a few months ago that those lists are empty. Has that changed? -- Alex JOST
