Andy Dills <a...@xecu.net> wrote:
We felt the amount of money being asked for was unreasonable, as we felt we likely wouldn't see an increase in spam if we turned them off.
We're paying customers of Spamhaus. Their lists account for about 85% of our spam rejects. I agree it's not cheap, but it's really effective and very accurate. But our strategy is to check Spamhaus and SURBL first, and run SA on what passes those tests. Since those are cheap and fast tests, and running SA takes more time, we think we win by running SA on only the remaining 15% of incoming. Even if you are right that SA would catch pretty much the same messages, we'd need significantly more hardware to do it only with SA. I realize this is separate from the question of whether SA should run Spamhaus tests by default. I just want to make a point about Spamhaus. Joseph Brennan Columbia University Information Technology
