Re: Protected Sky?
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:10:12 +0200 > Reindl Harald wrote: > >> Am 28.06.2016 um 16:00 schrieb RW: >> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:15:30 +0200 >> > Reindl Harald wrote: >> > >> >> Am 27.06.2016 um 21:27 schrieb Vincent Fox: >> >>> I saw a reference today in my MxToolbox report, to an RBL named >> >>> Protected Sky which had like double the listing activity of >> >>> Spamhaus. Does anyone know anything about this outfit? >> >> >> >> that's a bullshit RBL with large amounts of FP's >> > >> > Is that on the 127.0.0.3 response? >> >> well, i saw a few rejects from our servers (mrons using it to reject >> unsocred) and got that confirmed from 2 other sysadmins >> >> all of the sending machines where on no other RBL and on several DNSWL >> >> DUNNO which response they got to reject, but i only took notice that >> this RBL exists by wrong rejections > > The 127.0.0.2 response is only intended for controlling greylisting. > I tested with the 127.0.0.3 yesterday, which is their discard list. But it triggers on a lot of valid (ham) mail. So not a very useful RBL and if you use it I would not assign much points...
Re: Protected Sky?
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:10:12 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 28.06.2016 um 16:00 schrieb RW: > > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:15:30 +0200 > > Reindl Harald wrote: > > > >> Am 27.06.2016 um 21:27 schrieb Vincent Fox: > >>> I saw a reference today in my MxToolbox report, to an RBL named > >>> Protected Sky which had like double the listing activity of > >>> Spamhaus. Does anyone know anything about this outfit? > >> > >> that's a bullshit RBL with large amounts of FP's > > > > Is that on the 127.0.0.3 response? > > well, i saw a few rejects from our servers (mrons using it to reject > unsocred) and got that confirmed from 2 other sysadmins > > all of the sending machines where on no other RBL and on several DNSWL > > DUNNO which response they got to reject, but i only took notice that > this RBL exists by wrong rejections The 127.0.0.2 response is only intended for controlling greylisting.
Re: Protected Sky?
Am 28.06.2016 um 16:00 schrieb RW: On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:15:30 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: Am 27.06.2016 um 21:27 schrieb Vincent Fox: I saw a reference today in my MxToolbox report, to an RBL named Protected Sky which had like double the listing activity of Spamhaus. Does anyone know anything about this outfit? that's a bullshit RBL with large amounts of FP's Is that on the 127.0.0.3 response? well, i saw a few rejects from our servers (mrons using it to reject unsocred) and got that confirmed from 2 other sysadmins all of the sending machines where on no other RBL and on several DNSWL DUNNO which response they got to reject, but i only took notice that this RBL exists by wrong rejections signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Protected Sky?
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:15:30 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 27.06.2016 um 21:27 schrieb Vincent Fox: > > I saw a reference today in my MxToolbox report, to an RBL named > > Protected Sky which had like double the listing activity of > > Spamhaus. Does anyone know anything about this outfit? > > that's a bullshit RBL with large amounts of FP's Is that on the 127.0.0.3 response?
Re: Protected Sky?
On 06/27/2016 01:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 27.06.2016 um 21:27 schrieb Vincent Fox: I saw a reference today in my MxToolbox report, to an RBL named Protected Sky which had like double the listing activity of Spamhaus. Does anyone know anything about this outfit? that's a bullshit RBL with large amounts of FP's I was surprised by activity level and suspected as much. Wanted to doublecheck. Thanks.
Re: Protected Sky?
Am 27.06.2016 um 21:27 schrieb Vincent Fox: I saw a reference today in my MxToolbox report, to an RBL named Protected Sky which had like double the listing activity of Spamhaus. Does anyone know anything about this outfit? that's a bullshit RBL with large amounts of FP's We primarily rely on Spamhaus at present, with some others thrown in which catch some that Spamhaus doesn't there are more than enough scoreable RBLs postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 8 postscreen_dnsbl_action = enforce postscreen_greet_action = enforce postscreen_dnsbl_sites = dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.10*9 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.14*9 zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[10;11]*8 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.5*7 zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[4..7]*7 b.barracudacentral.org=127.0.0.2*7 zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.3*7 dnsbl.inps.de=127.0.0.2*7 hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com=127.0.0.2*4 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.7*4 bl.spamcop.net=127.0.0.2*4 bl.spameatingmonkey.net=127.0.0.[2;3]*4 dnsrbl.swinog.ch=127.0.0.3*4 ix.dnsbl.manitu.net=127.0.0.2*4 psbl.surriel.com=127.0.0.2*4 bl.mailspike.net=127.0.0.[10;11;12]*4 bl.mailspike.net=127.0.0.2*4 zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.2*3 score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[0..20]*3 bl.spamcannibal.org=127.0.0.2*3 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.6*3 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.8*2 hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com=127.0.0.4*2 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.9*2 dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net=127.0.0.2*2 all.spamrats.com=127.0.0.38*2 bl.nszones.com=127.0.0.[2;3]*1 dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net=127.0.0.2*1 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.2*1 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.4*1 score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[0..69]*1 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.3*1 hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com=127.0.1.2*1 dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.15*1 ips.backscatterer.org=127.0.0.2*1 bl.nszones.com=127.0.0.5*-1 score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[90..100]*-1 wl.mailspike.net=127.0.0.[18;19;20]*-2 hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com=127.0.0.1*-2 ips.whitelisted.org=127.0.0.2*-2 list.dnswl.org=127.0.[0..255].0*-2 dnswl.inps.de=127.0.[0;1].[2..10]*-2 list.dnswl.org=127.0.[0..255].1*-3 list.dnswl.org=127.0.[0..255].2*-4 list.dnswl.org=127.0.[0..255].3*-5 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
