Am 28.05.2010 14:13, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de: > Zitat von LuKreme <krem...@kreme.com>: > >> On 27-May-2010, at 07:34, Andy Dills wrote: >>> >>> I've been investigating postscreen, as we've been address probed/bombed >>> for years, as we have a few domains that are very old (well, early 90s) >>> that had a lot of users back in the dialup days. Our approach was to >>> just >>> throw hardware at the problem, and we've had a whole cluster of servers >>> just sending out 550s all day long for years now. >>> >>> We don't do any RBL checks at the postfix level; >> >> That's just … silly >> >>> we have amavisd-new >>> handle all of that via spamassassin. I'm hesitant to allow a single >>> blacklist to determine the fate of mail acceptance, especially when we >>> have a very low false negative rate with amavisd/SA. Essentially, we'd >>> rather throw hardware at the problem than potentially reject legit mail. >> >> Really? How much legit mail hits zen's rbl (hint, the number rhymes >> with "hero"). > > Hm. The infamous dispute with the austrian NIC comes to mind... > We have throw out all spamhaus.org related blacklists since then. > > Regards
whatever if you do selective rbl checks, you will nearly never get into trouble, after all there is a lot checks which you can do before rbls so not much leaves to spamhouse, not using them in any way is not really clever, if you like a rbl advanced configurable modus try policy-weight which you can also use selective and/or with whitelisting etc by the way its up to what your using, but i would miss rbls in my antispam chain > > Andreas > > > -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer Germany/Munich/Bavaria
