Robert - elists writes: > > From: mouss > > > > http://www.dnsbl.com/ > > > > I have never paid attention to it so... questions.. > > Was dsbl.org widely used? > > In general, is it considered a major and necessary dnsbl tool for the war > against spam? > > Does anyone have any idea how much sustained bandwidth in and out that it > took to run the main dsbl.org host? > > Just wondering if it might be worth throwing an some cold spare commercial > server hardware we have laying around at it...
I would suggest that'd be a great idea, if they're interested in using it. ;) Here's my take on dsbl nowadays. Going by http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20080517-r657323-n/RCVD_IN_DSBL/detail , it appears that it's still quite worthwhile: 6.18% of spam hit with 0.01% of nonspam, for 99.8% effectiveness. It's also good at hitting low-scoring spam if you look at the score-map; the peak is at a score of 4 SpamAssassin points. The overlaps with other rules are interesting, too: OVERLAP WITH FULL RULES: overlap spam: 83% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RAZOR2_CHECK; 6% of RAZOR2_CHECK hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 83% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_PBL; 7% of RCVD_IN_PBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 83% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit URIBL_BLACK; 6% of URIBL_BLACK hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 81% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100; 6% of RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 76% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100; 6% of RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 75% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit URIBL_JP_SURBL; 6% of URIBL_JP_SURBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 66% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit HTML_MESSAGE; 6% of HTML_MESSAGE hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 62% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET; 6% of RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 61% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_XBL; 6% of RCVD_IN_XBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 59% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit URIBL_OB_SURBL; 6% of URIBL_OB_SURBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 58% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL; 9% of RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 58% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit URIBL_SC_SURBL; 6% of URIBL_SC_SURBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL overlap spam: 52% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RDNS_DYNAMIC; 7% of RDNS_DYNAMIC hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL So it's definitely providing useful data for SpamAssassin. --j.
