On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 08:13:14AM -0700, jaso...@mail-central.com wrote: > I'm learning about whitelist scoring in postscreen_dnsbl_sites= > > /dev/rob0 mentioned using these > > postscreen_dnsbl_sites= > ... BLACKLISTS ... > swl.spamhaus.org*-4
You can pretty much guarantee that anything in SWL is not spamming. But, as Noel points out, not much is in SWL. > list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].0*-2 DNSWL trust level "none", many of these are email marketers. > list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].1*-3 These are usually bulk senders also, but less likely to be spamming. > list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].[2..255]*-4 These are usually NON-bulk senders. > in the post at http://rob0.nodns4.us/postscreen.html. > > One of the servers that's been shown to me has, instead > > postscreen_dnsbl_sites= > ... BLACKLISTS ... > dwl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[2;3]*-3 oops > swl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[12;13]*-3 > list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].0*-2 > list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].1*-3 > list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].2*-4 > list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].3*-5 Different scores, same basic idea. > Right now, two questions > > (1) Does order matter in these? I.e., is postscreen's behavior > different whether WHITELISTS are before/after BLACKLISTS? > (2) If using Spamhaus for Blacklisting already, why not use 'dwl' > too? I guess what I'm really asking is about the "*UNDERSTAND* it > *BEFORE* you enable" advice ... how/why to choose 'this' whitelist > over 'that'? There are other DNS whitelists. In particular I believe that junkemailfilter has one. I recommend DNSWL.org because I use it (and have signed up for it.) It seems to be widely adopted, where most major senders of all kinds are listed. When the whitelist threshold feature was introduced (Postfix 2.11), all the pain of after-220 tests went away, -- http://rob0.nodns4.us/ Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
