> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:27 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > Note that rbl checks do not only control the IP you are receiving mail from, > > but also an IP others are receiving mail from. That means, rbl checks can > > help you catch spam others are (unintentionally) forwarding to you. > > > > I object against disabling RBL checks in SA ...
On 01.07.09 09:40, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > There is the forwarding argument - I agree, but it is not something that > affects us. I object to wasting resources and to have SA fire RBL query > roundtrips on every message it scans, when they have already been passed > by RBL checking at the SMTP level, seems like a pointless waste of time > and clock cycles. they often have not, since SA checks more headers than the last one. (and it may check more rbls than your MTA does at SMTP level). and the results from MTA checks should be cached already as it was mentioned already... > If sorbs bites the dust I'm sure as hell going to want to comment that > out someplace. - rbl_checks are more than just SORBS. - SORBS does not have any problems now and it should even not in the future (it may have outages but that's what mirrors are for, and sorbs does have mirrors) > I don't really want it sitting and waiting for an answer > from a non-operative list. Bless SA, it's great, but it's not the > quickest thing to run. Any unnecessary delay that can be removed > (provided the cost of doing so does not offset it) is a plus to me. well, skip network_checks at all. Note that they all (including rbls) are effective. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
