Re: Detection rate of msbl.org

2020-07-01 Thread RW 
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:49:03 +0200
Marc Roos wrote:


> Jul  1 01:08:45 spam1 sendmail[19193]: 05UN8fHL019193: Milter: 
> from=, reject=550 5.7.1 Rejected 
> feedb...@service.alibaba.com SPAM (ebl.msbl.org) 

I don't know what this is, but I guess it's not a purely SA based milter
as it gives a single reason for rejection.

Most of the hits on EBL that I get with SA are from addresses parsed out
of the body - often from HTML. If your milter can't do that you wont get
good results.

EBL is most effective against a subset of difficult spam where other
types of list don't work. It should really be judged on how it effects
what would otherwise would get past content filtering, not on what it
prevents reaching content filtering.

RE: Detection rate of msbl.org

2020-07-01 Thread Marc Roos 


Not much yet, I got this one[1]. But I am having this check as one of 
the last. Most connections are already failing with 'Possibly forged 
hostname'

[1]
Jul  1 01:08:45 spam1 sendmail[19193]: 05UN8fHL019193: Milter: 
from=, reject=550 5.7.1 Rejected 
feedb...@service.alibaba.com SPAM (ebl.msbl.org) 





-Original Message-
From: James Brown [mailto:jlbr...@bordo.com.au] 
Sent: maandag 22 juni 2020 16:07
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Detection rate of msbl.org

I’m thinking about using the EBL from msbl.org with SA.

Can anyone tell me what detection rate they are getting with it? Is it 
worth using, or would the spam be trapped by other methods (RBL, etc) 
anyway?

Pretty hard to find much information about how useful it is.

Thanks,

James.

Detection rate of msbl.org

2020-06-22 Thread James Brown 
I’m thinking about using the EBL from msbl.org with SA.

Can anyone tell me what detection rate they are getting with it? Is it worth 
using, or would the spam be trapped by other methods (RBL, etc) anyway?

Pretty hard to find much information about how useful it is.

Thanks,

James.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature