Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Well, I have a caching dns running, and it performs (almost) flawlessly.
zen.spamhaus.org seems to perform very well here, since when I look at
the
mail logs I don' find any false positives. I was using
cbl.abuseat.org, bu
it was too loosy on checks, so many .edu.ar
After much testing, we have decided to put the RBLs on Postfix for
performance reasons. Before checking with those RBLs, our system does
EHLO checks against a known-spammer blacklist database as well to filter
the most obvious cases. Then we use zen.spamhaus.org,
safe.dnsbl.sorbs.net, and
-Original Message-
From: Oenus Tech Services [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:33 AM
To: Luis Hernán Otegui
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA
After much testing, we have decided to put the RBLs on Postfix
spam/virus mail had been blocking before this). We stopped
using bayesian at all since 1.-Many of our customers get
Ps, bayesian isn't just for manual training. Maybe set a high/low score in
auto learning, but it does help.
Oenus Tech Services wrote:
After much testing, we have decided to put the RBLs on Postfix for
performance reasons. Before checking with those RBLs, our system does
EHLO checks against a known-spammer blacklist database as well to filter
the most obvious cases. Then we use zen.spamhaus.org,
Hi, list, I know this is one of those egg and chicken kind
of questions, but having now the possibility of checking the
impact of various setups, I was wondering if it is more
convenient to let the MTA perform the RBL checks, or disable
them and let SA do this job.
Currently I am using
Bret:
You do not mean you run the same RBLs at the MTA and SA level do you?
If the MTA rejects on an RBL there should be nothing for SA to score on
as that message is rejected already. I currently score in SA on a
number of RBLs but would be interested to know what you regard as safe
to use
Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Hi, list, I know this is one of those egg and chicken kind of
questions, but having now the possibility of checking the impact of
various setups, I was wondering if it is more convenient to let the MTA
perform the RBL checks, or disable them and let SA do this job.
Well, I have a caching dns running, and it performs (almost) flawlessly.
zen.spamhaus.org seems to perform very well here, since when I look at the
mail logs I don' find any false positives. I was using cbl.abuseat.org, bu
it was too loosy on checks, so many .edu.ar servers from here (I live and
Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Well, I have a caching dns running, and it performs (almost) flawlessly.
zen.spamhaus.org http://zen.spamhaus.org seems to perform very well
here, since when I look at the mail logs I don' find any false
positives. I was using cbl.abuseat.org http://cbl.abuseat.org,
You do not mean you run the same RBLs at the MTA and SA level
do you? If the MTA rejects on an RBL there should be nothing
for SA to score on as that message is rejected already. I
currently score in SA on a number of RBLs but would be
interested to know what you regard as safe to use at
11 matches
Mail list logo
