Le mercredi 18 août 2010 à 06:36 -0400, Michael Scheidell a écrit : > On 8/17/10 7:30 PM, Alexandre Chapellon wrote: > > Hi the list, > > > > I am posting the results of my tests in order to have > > fedback/feelings/remarqs. > > This is not directly spamassassin related, but can be helpful for > > people (I saw here) wondering if they would used the barracuda > > DNSBL. > > > > When other well known DNSBL (I have always heard spamhaus sbl and > > xbl are trust worthy) list less at most 50 entries , barrcuda lists > > almost 8000!!!! > > > > > If I were asked to use barracuda bl I would just anwser: "NO WAY!" > Which is one reason that the barracuda list is optional. latest > suggestion was to use a (low score) and last_untrusted. > Third reason is 'emailreg.org'. Do you own googling and make your own > conclusion. > (second reason left out or public forum) > Indeed using Barracuda RBL to score (low) is already a much better idea than using it to reject mails (what deep scanning do)!
>From emailreg.org frontpage: "Emailreg.org will not get you delisted from Barracuda Block List (BRBL)" If I'm not mistaking emailreg.org register mail servers and domains...? In my case the problem is at the same time having IP listed (dynamics ip) AND dulb admin enabling deeps scanning when they sould not. By the way I'm not a big fan of registering my servers to any private entity in order to improve "deliverability". What about the second reason? > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap®. > For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/ > > > ______________________________________________________________________ >
