April 28, 2023 at 1:02 AM, "Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users" <postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> > On 4/27/23 04:47, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote: > > > > > * Ken Peng via Postfix-users: > > Using rspamd instead of postscreen? > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. > > If you suggest relying on rspamd only, and forgo postscreen, I have to > > disagree. In my experience, postscreen has proven highly useful in spam > > prevention, in particular when DNSBL lookups are configured in addition > > to the standard tests. The latter already catch many spammers in a > > hurry, though. > > > > Postscreen is good for rejecting the low-hanging fruit in fast before-accept > checks. It's not so good at deep inspection. If you want deep inspection, do > it after acceptance using a more suitable tool ... such as rspamd. Don't try > to do it in postscreen. That's not its intended purpose. > Sorry i have a question to postscreen. I saw many people use postscreen for RBL checks. But postfix itself have the RBL checks already: smtpd_recipient_restrictions = ... reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net So what's the difference between them? Regards. _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
