Zitat von Robert Schetterer <rob...@schetterer.org>:
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
My only intention was to point out that the FP rate is sometimes a
"point of view". We also use RBLs but not Spamhaus any more and for
sure everyone should carefully choose before using one and monitor the
results.
Regards
Andreas
