On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:48:53PM +0100, Simon Waters wrote: > On Friday 11 June 2010 13:30:44 Curtis Maurand wrote: > > currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ... > > reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, > > permit > > > > Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive? > > should I just let spamassassin handle this and score accordingly? > > It is a policy issue - there is no right answer - does it work for you? > > I include flat reject on zen.spamhaus.org on some servers without > unacceptable > (for us) false positive rate (Spamhaus are good at listing mostly spammers). > > Main issue I see with zen.spamhaus.org is some persistent spammers who > presumably are clean in parts, or otherwise difficult for Spamhaus to list > (suing them?). > > I can't comment on bl.spamcop.net, but I'd expect it to have more false > positives based on the description provided, so a weighted use of this is > probably sensible. > > I'd stick it in with warn_if_reject and measure the false positive rate, and > benefit if any over existing lists I use. Block lists don't add nicely -- > they may well include the same spam sources but tend to disagree over their > mistakes, so you get addition of mistakes but overlap on the correct answers > meaning the returns may diminish quickly. >
We use the policyd_weight policy server to evaluate a number of RBLs and other message criteria before refusing a message. You can weight each RBL and decide how much effect its entries should have. This helps to minimize the mistakes from any one RBL. Regards, Ken
