On 1/6/2013 6:18 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
> On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
>>
>> I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
>> alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
>> been a nearly complete turnover of staff and it's much better run.
>>
>> Take another look. I find its false positive rates down with
>> Spamhaus' now.
>
> I presume you're not talking about the Spamhaus DBL, which is quite awful.
Since the DBL is an RHSBL, not DNSBL, it cannot be used with postscreen,
which is the topic of this thread. Discussion of the merits of
[DNS|RHS]BLs is off topic on the postfix list, thus I don't desire to
create a long OT thread, but I am curious as to why you feel the DBL is
awful. I've had no problems using it for direct rejections with these
restrictions:
reject_rhsbl_reverse_client dbl.spamhaus.org
reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org
reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamhaus.org
No FPs do date.
--
Stan
