Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-04 Thread mouss
Voytek Eymont wrote: On Sat, October 4, 2008 1:03 am, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it from e.g. SpamAssassin. But I personally think that dsn.rfc-ignorant.org is safe for smtp rejection :) thanks, Ralf (after all, it was your suggestion from

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread Voytek Eymont
On Sat, October 4, 2008 1:03 am, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it from e.g. > SpamAssassin. But I personally think that dsn.rfc-ignorant.org is safe > for smtp rejection :) thanks, Ralf (after all, it was your suggestion from http://www.rfc-ig

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread mouss
Joey wrote: * Voytek Eymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use. mouss, thanks so, should be like this ? smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it from

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread mouss
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: * Voytek Eymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use. mouss, thanks so, should be like this ? smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread Ralf Hildebrandt
* Joey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it from e.g. > > SpamAssassin. But I personally think that dsn.rfc-ignorant.org is safe > > for smtp rejection :) > > We had a lot of problems when we used rfc-ignorant.org because of Exchange > servers not be

RE: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread Joey
> > * Voytek Eymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use. > > > > > > mouss, thanks > > > > so, should be like this ? > > > > smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org > > That's STILL smtp rejection - he was

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread Ralf Hildebrandt
* Voytek Eymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use. > > > mouss, thanks > > so, should be like this ? > > smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org That's STILL smtp rejection - he was thinking of using it f

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread Voytek Eymont
On Fri, October 3, 2008 11:36 pm, mouss wrote: > Voytek Eymont wrote: > rfci is not safe for smtp rejection. It is not intended for such use. mouss, thanks so, should be like this ? smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org >> blocked using dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net (to

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread mouss
Voytek Eymont wrote: On Fri, October 3, 2008 11:07 pm, Udo Rader wrote: Joey schrieb: I use in this order the following: we use these: blocked using bl.spamcop.net (total: 491) blocked using combined.njabl.org (total: 77) blocked using dsn.rfc-ignorant.org (total: 368) rfci i

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread Henrik K
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 08:32:16AM -0400, Joey wrote: > Hello All, > > > > I just updated my rbl list since dsbl.org is out and wanted to see if anyone > has any new lists that are conservative enough to use in the war against > spam. > Try barracuda, read the whole thread: http://marc.info/

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread Voytek Eymont
On Fri, October 3, 2008 11:07 pm, Udo Rader wrote: > Joey schrieb: > >> I use in this order the following: we use these: blocked using bl.spamcop.net (total: 491) blocked using combined.njabl.org (total: 77) blocked using dsn.rfc-ignorant.org (total: 368) blocked using dul.dnsbl

Re: Updated RBL's & spam fighting

2008-10-03 Thread Udo Rader
Joey schrieb: I use in this order the following: reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, for us bl.spamcop.net has produced quite a lot false positives in the past, that's why we only use it for scoring, but things may have changed. re