Re: Detection rate of msbl.org
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
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.