Hello Dave,

Thank you for testing our RBL/RWL Service, The IP in question above was
listed 23 hours ago due to hitting a pristine spam trap source more than 10
times within the same day. The listings are time based and are removed once
the timeout period has exceeded or manual delisting with remediation
actions. -- If the host continues to hit the spam traps / honeypot then the
timeout period is reset.

We would love to hear how your testing goes over the next few days and if
you have any issues please do let us know.

Best Regards,
MailBlacklist.com Team

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:04 PM, David Jones <djo...@ena.com> wrote:

> *>From:* MailBlacklist.com Management <managem...@mailblacklist.com>
> *>Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2015 7:38 AM
> *>To:* users@spamassassin.apache.org
> *>Subject:* MailBlacklist.com Integration Testing Phase
>
> >---- Spam Assassin & MailBlacklist.com Integration Testing Phase 1 ----
>
> >We would like to welcome users of the Spam Assassin project to test our
> high availability DNS-RBL / DNS-RWL >within their configurations.
>
> Got these rules in testing with a score of 0.01.  I filter for about 100K
> mailboxes and I am not seeing reliable results.  I am seeing the majority
> of messages hit this BL being clean messages with a very low score.
>
> http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/192.64.236.211.html
>
> The above IP was an email from hgtv.com from a reliable sender
> sailthru.com (valid unsubscribe process).  Note the other RBLs on the
> link above that match mailblacklist.com.  That IP was listed in DNSWL and
> Mailspike WLs that are usually pretty reliable.
>
> My MTA (Postfix with Postscreen) is knocking down most of the spam using
> other RBLs so what makes it to SpamAssassin is going to be 98 percent
> clean.  So far (it's early still for them and my testing), I don't think
> it's going to improve anything over Spamhaus and Invaluement RBLs and only
> produce a lot of false positives.
>
> I would like to hear from others that may be testing to see if our results
> are similar.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to