I am using the following RBLs :
reject_rbl_client b.barracudacentral.org,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
reject_rbl_client all.spamrats.com
any other suggestions? spam still flowing:
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fqdn.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.129
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5.3
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08=0.001,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01]
autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: rico.fqdn.com (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=e.safenet-inc.com;
domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
header.from=sentineli...@e.safenet-inc.com header.d=
e.safenet-inc.com
very low score for spammy email.
any suggestions?
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:49 AM, motty cruz <motty.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am using the following RBLs:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Steve Bergman <sbergma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2014 11:15 PM, Daniel Staal wrote:
>>
>> You probably can. ;) But I'm sure Windstream didn't get you every
>>> piece of mail immediately after it was sent - just as soon as they could
>>> after they got it.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. I'm conservatively holding myself to higher standards than is
>> perhaps warranted. But I think that those standards are along the lines of
>> what my long-time customer thought they were getting from Windstream. And
>> it Winstream had too many issues, I think I would have heard about it.
>>
>> And their servers *did* become unavailable for short periods from time to
>> time.
>>
>> But once I'm satisfied that I've reached parity, the real fun starts. We
>> were on POP3. Now we're on our own IMAP. And there is Dovecot full text
>> search in our near future. It will be fun to be able to go beyond and show
>> off a little. My client company's CEO does a lot of full text searching
>> over his email history.
>>
>>
>> I'm not even saying I like greylisting - I'm just
>>
>>> saying you should work to set user expectations to reality,
>>>
>>
>> When trust died on the Internet, telnet died, but somehow the
>> unbelievably naive email system did not. It was never prepared for spammer
>> abuse. And we're still accommodating to 7 bit systems for crying out loud.
>> If it were material I suppose it would make a fine antique in someone's
>> collection. Right along side the PDP-11.
>>
>>
>> which is
>>
>>> that email sometimes takes time to get delivered and (rarely) gets
>>> lost. If something is absolutely time-critical, they should treat email
>>> as a backup,
>>>
>>
>> I think that It's largely a matter of *peoples* expectations and
>> understanding, If a mail gets missed, folks can understand an occasional "I
>> never got your email, we'll send someone over right away".
>>
>> What I object to is the idea of regular and unpredictable delays as
>> introduced by greylisting. And it's just plain ugly from an aesthetic
>> standpoint. But then so are our current email protocols. But I do think
>> that can be fixed.
>>
>> Never did like texting. And that's the alternative.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>>
>
