On Tuesday 23 August 2011 14:25:32 Wietse Venema wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner:
> > On 8/23/2011 9:10 AM, Kov?cs J?nos wrote:
> > > Thanks Ralf! It's amazing how much spam the pregreet test and a
> > > good RBL can catch. Do you have any data on how many spam
> > > emails survived postscreen?
> >
> > Overall, Postscreen is no better nor worse at stopping spam than
> > what we've all been doing via SMTPD for many years. It simply
> > decreases the number of SMTPD processes required to do so, hence
> > decreasing server load and allowing more processing of
> > legitimate mail.
> >
> > Postscreen is no magic bullet, it's overall "catch rate" being
> > little different than setups without Postscreen.
>
> Agreed. Postscreen's main goal is to reduce mail server load, so
> that you can postpone that forklift upgrade.
>
> Postscreen also stops a few percent of spambots that popular DNSBLs
> miss, but at this time, that is only a minor benefit.
I'm going to disagree, slightly, with Stan and Wietse. The DNSBL
scoring feature was formerly only available via a policy service, and
it seems to have improved my spam blocking somewhat. I have aggressive
DNSBLs, which I'd never trust for reject_rbl_client, set with low
scores.
Granted, my pre-postscreen spam blocking was pretty good. I'm sure
we're only looking at a fraction of a percent here. Every little bit
helps.
--
Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
"/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
