On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:31:42PM +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Dan Wilder wrote on Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:49:36 -0800: > > > This is a highly automated RBL based on some big spamtraps, > > > > I'm finding spamtrap RBLs quite problematic because they list the wrong > culprits. What does the mail server sending the junk has to do with the > original sender? Nothing other than it's possibly a client having an > infected machine or being a spammer. This list tends to collect mail > sevrer IPs from high volume ISPs and could even be used for DoSing them > (just sent a mail to one of the spamtrap accounts over them).
One could argue that one back an forth forever. I think the bottom line is, "whatever floats your boat." It's easy enough to add score RCVD_IN_CBL 0 to your local.cf, even if SA 2.7 gets released with CBL rules in it. Obviously the RBLs can be gamed. Some are more susceptable than others, and worse, it may be inconvenient or difficult to get off some of them once a prankster has gotten you on. It's an empirical question as to whether such monkeyshines are a significant factor. Mitigating this possiblilty is the score given for CBL in SA 2.70 ... 1.2, if I recall correctly. A CBL listing will not in and of itself consign an email to the spam category. CBL, according to their website, times out listings, though they won't reveal the timeout, and they have a no-questions-asked delisting service. -- Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
