Steve Tornio wrote:
Because those addresses are in the XBL, not the SBL. The XBL is
populated by entries from the CBL, which are added when virus-like or
worm-like behavior is detected, and entries are removed at the first
request. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to try to create a
static list for it, when the SBL list is only updated twice a day
anyway.
Of course, you could just go to www.spamhaus.org and read up on how it
works.
Steve
Thanks for the tip Steve,
I've just read up on it......
and it seems to suggest that using sbl+xbl is a good thing.
What exactly is spamd going to catch then ?
spamd will tarpit entries in the SBL, which are (supposed to be)
actual spamming operations. The idea behind spamd is to waste the
time and resources of spam operations, not simply to reject their
mail. If you're only looking to reject mail, then don't use spamd.
I do understand what spamd is trying to achieve.
I want both ...................... to waste their time and resources and
block their email as I'm sure everyone does !.
Which is what should happen according to my interpretation of spamd and
its standard implementation. To my knowledge, there does not appear to
be anywhere in the spamd documentation that says something like
(sarcastic voice) "after delaying the spammer and using up their time
and resources, allow their connection through to your mailserver so they
can deliver their spam !"
Thanks for your help Steve, I think Otto is looking at the *real* problem.
Brian.
