Re: sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-04 Thread /dev/rob0
This thread probably needs to wind down; once again I will suggest taking discussions of this nature to a list I co-manage: http://spammers.dontlike.us/ On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:13:00AM -0400, Sean Greenslade wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:37:33PM +1300, Peter wrote: > > The main probl

Re: sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-04 Thread Michael J Wise
> On 04/10/16 07:02, Sean Greenslade wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 01:47:28PM -0400, Fongaboo wrote: >> I personally don't use RBLs as hard blocks. Instead, I have them set up >> in my spam filter (SpamAssassin) with different weights. That way, if >> one particular RBL is acting up, I can de-

Re: sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-03 Thread Sean Greenslade
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:37:33PM +1300, Peter wrote: > The main problem with this is that one of the primary advantages to > using a DNSRBL is that it sits in front of SpamAssassin. DNSRBL > blockign does not require deep inspection of message content so it can > be checked first and clients blo

Re: sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-03 Thread Peter
On 04/10/16 07:02, Sean Greenslade wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 01:47:28PM -0400, Fongaboo wrote: > I personally don't use RBLs as hard blocks. Instead, I have them set up > in my spam filter (SpamAssassin) with different weights. That way, if > one particular RBL is acting up, I can de-weight

Re: sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-03 Thread Sean Greenslade
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:59:08PM -0400, Fongaboo wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2016, Sean Greenslade wrote: > > > I personally don't use RBLs as hard blocks. Instead, I have them set up > > in my spam filter (SpamAssassin) with different weights. That way, if > > one particular RBL is acting up, I c

Re: sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-03 Thread Fongaboo
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016, Sean Greenslade wrote: I personally don't use RBLs as hard blocks. Instead, I have them set up in my spam filter (SpamAssassin) with different weights. That way, if one particular RBL is acting up, I can de-weight it and keep an eye on it without it affecting delivery. The

Re: sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-03 Thread Wietse Venema
Fongaboo: > > I'm running Postfix 2.11.7 on FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE. > > Just wanted to get folks' opinions/rationale/thoughts on behavior of some > of the RBL's. > > Specifically SORBS.NET... I first set up my server using a popular FreeBSD > tutorial. SORBS.NET was included in a list of recomme

Re: sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-03 Thread Steve Atkins
> On Oct 3, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Fongaboo wrote: > > > I'm running Postfix 2.11.7 on FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE. > > Just wanted to get folks' opinions/rationale/thoughts on behavior of some of > the RBL's. > > Specifically SORBS.NET... I first set up my server using a popular FreeBSD > tutorial. S

Re: sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-03 Thread Sean Greenslade
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 01:47:28PM -0400, Fongaboo wrote: > > I'm running Postfix 2.11.7 on FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE. > > Just wanted to get folks' opinions/rationale/thoughts on behavior of some of > the RBL's. > > Specifically SORBS.NET... I first set up my server using a popular FreeBSD > tutoria

sorbs.net blacklist too aggressive?

2016-10-03 Thread Fongaboo
I'm running Postfix 2.11.7 on FreeBSD 10.2-RELEASE. Just wanted to get folks' opinions/rationale/thoughts on behavior of some of the RBL's. Specifically SORBS.NET... I first set up my server using a popular FreeBSD tutorial. SORBS.NET was included in a list of recommended RBL's in the lates

Re: Too aggressive

2010-06-11 Thread Henrik K
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:40:24AM -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > > Beyond the FP risk, there is a more subtle issue of whether the > benefit of rejecting spam cheaply is worth the potential cost of not > having a steady stream of representative spam feeding the adaptive > dynamic features of a scoring

Re: Too aggressive

2010-06-11 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Curtis Maurand put forth on 6/11/2010 7:30 AM: > currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ... > reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, > permit > > Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive? > should I just let spamassassin handl

Re: Too aggressive

2010-06-11 Thread Bill Cole
Curtis Maurand wrote, On 6/11/10 8:30 AM: currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ... reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, permit Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive? No. Or, yes. Maybe. A lot depends on who your

Re: Too aggressive

2010-06-11 Thread Kenneth Marshall
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:48:53PM +0100, Simon Waters wrote: > On Friday 11 June 2010 13:30:44 Curtis Maurand wrote: > > currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ... > > reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, > > permit > > > > Is flat out rejecting client

Re: Too aggressive

2010-06-11 Thread Simon Waters
On Friday 11 June 2010 13:30:44 Curtis Maurand wrote: > currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ... > reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, > permit > > Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive? > should I just let spamassassin

Too aggressive

2010-06-11 Thread Curtis Maurand
currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ... reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, permit Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive? should I just let spamassassin handle this and score accordingly? Thanks in advance, Curti