> On May 24, 2020, at 3:59 PM, Laura Smith <n5d9xq3ti233xiyif...@protonmail.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I’ve been sort of opposed to greylisting in the past due to a userbase
>> that’s sensitive to delays, but… the spam is worse.
>>
>
>
> IMHO Greylisting is rather pointless. Its a blunt tool, and not only that it
> does that unforgivable thing of annoying genuine people.
>
> I would hazard a guess that if you are being innundated with spam, then your
> RBL setup is less than adequate. Both the choice of RBLs ***AND*** the
> correct configuration thereof is critical.
As I described in my original email, this isn’t a failure of RBL setup. I’m
just being inundated with:
- Correctly configured hosts that don’t fail any obvious protocol checks
- Hosts that are not on any RBLs until 5-10 minutes after delivering
As I see it, I have limited options:
- Do more filtering on content (blech - these only score +1 or so in SA)
- Delay the mail (from non-whitelisted senders) until the hosts are listed.
> I should also add that you should not be afraid to pay for access. The good
> lists will (a) block you if you hammer them with high volumes of requests (b)
> save some of their better content (or new innovations) for their paid
> subscribers.
I’ve trialed the major ones with no improvement. The greylisting suggestion
came from Abusix because they looked up a day of “leaks” and found they were
simply delivering before they were being listed.
> RBLs these days are pretty darn good, with everything setup correctly you can
> easily be in the very high 90-percentiles of catching spam and pretty much
> zero false-positives.
Sadly, we seem to be at the head of most spammer’s lists. One of these “paid”
services should give us free access in return for a spamtrap. :)
It’s also incredibly obvious there are some colos that are catering to these
people, esp. that firm out of Buffalo…
Charles
>
