Matthias Leisi wrote on 25/09/24 5:38 pm:
[...snip...]> I can suggest that we run a statistical experiment
I'm moving this to the dev list in my full reply, as now we are getting
more into things more suited to that mailing list.
Sidney
>
> The situation is that dnswl has four possible responses when it acts on a
> query that it has flagged as exceeding the limits of unpaid use: 1) reject
> with SERVFAIL, 2) reject with BLOCKED, 3) return 127.0.0.255 which is code
> for blocked, 4) return 127.0.10.3 which is code for "other
Most of the messages on this thread, other than from bcole, have not been from
members of the SpamAssassin PMC. I want to clarify our position and correct
some details. I also want to see if dialog with you, Matthias, can lead to a
better solution.
The situation is that dnswl has four possible
"Jared Hall via users" writes:
> Here's the actual use case:
>
> 1) Stefan's a web guy. He hosts his stuff at ScalaHosting.
> 2) ScalaHosting provides a one-click install of SpamAssassin.
> 3) Stefan doesn't know what DNS that SpamAssassin instance (think like
> a CloudWays App, or Digital Ocean
On 24-09-2024 16:10, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
TL;DR: Rather than using an in-band signal of a special reply value
to queries from blocked users, as do other DNS-Based List operators,
DNSWL.org sends back a "listed high" response to all queries. I was
unaware
On 2024-09-24 at 04:18:06
On 24-09-2024 20:43, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Root Cause Analysis (in order):
1) DNSWL does not provide blocked codes. That deviates from most
DNS-query based systems.
This is wrong.
I agree. This DNSWL website clearly defines a list of specific response
codes, otherwise spamassassin w
> Root Cause Analysis (in order):
>
> 1) DNSWL does not provide blocked codes. That deviates from most DNS-query
> based systems.
This is wrong.
— Matthias
>
> Maybe disable VALIDITY rule as well... They also have 10k limit in 30 days
> window ..
>
> My understanding is that Validity returns a specific value (127.255.255.255)
> for blocked queries.
I kept going back and forth as to whether to jump in on this thread and point
out that our own
On 2024-09-24 at 12:59:51 UTC-0400 (Tue, 24 Sep 2024 12:59:51 -0400)
Jared Hall via users
is rumored to have said:
> On 9/24/2024 10:10 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>
>> I understand this case as "abusers" instead of users.
> One man's use is another man's abuse. Limits are reached and Fal
On 9/24/2024 10:10 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I understand this case as "abusers" instead of users.
One man's use is another man's abuse. Limits are reached and False
Negatives are produced by DNSWL.
Here's the actual use case:
1) Stefan's a web guy. He hosts his stuff at ScalaHos
On 2024-09-24 at 09:13:16 UTC-0400 (Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:13:16 -0400)
Bill Cole
is rumored to have said:
> On 2024-09-24 at 04:18:06 UTC-0400 (Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:18:06 +0200)
> Matthias Leisi
> is rumored to have said:
> (Quoting me)
>>>
>>> people who don't configure it correctly, in a way that
On 2024-09-24 at 05:09:50 UTC-0400 (Tue, 24 Sep 2024 11:09:50 +0200)
Tom Bartel
is rumored to have said:
> I'm not sure if the 10,000 limit is possibly in reference to the Validity
> allow list...
>
> https://knowledge.validity.com/s/articles/Accessing-Validity-reputation-data-through-DNS?languag
On 2024-09-24 at 10:10:24 UTC-0400 (Tue, 24 Sep 2024 16:10:24 +0200)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas
is rumored to have said:
TL;DR: Rather than using an in-band signal of a special reply value to
queries from blocked users, as do other DNS-Based List operators,
DNSWL.org sends back a "li
TL;DR: Rather than using an in-band signal of a special reply
value to queries from blocked users, as do other DNS-Based List
operators, DNSWL.org sends back a "listed high" response to all
queries. I was unaware
On 2024-09-24 at 04:18:06 UTC-0400 (Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:18:06 +0200)
Matthias Le
On 2024-09-24 at 04:18:06 UTC-0400 (Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:18:06 +0200)
Matthias Leisi
is rumored to have said:
(Quoting me)
people who don't configure it correctly, in a way that is *almost
invisible.* The lower rate limit which they established in March of
this year isn't inherently bad, it ju
I'm not sure if the 10,000 limit is possibly in reference to the Validity
allow list...
https://knowledge.validity.com/s/articles/Accessing-Validity-reputation-data-through-DNS?language=en_US
We recently added a registration gate - no fees for usage above 10,000 / 30
days, however registration of
>
> people who don't configure it correctly, in a way that is *almost invisible.*
> The lower rate limit which they established in March of this year isn't
> inherently bad, it just meant that enough people were hitting the limit that
> someone bothered opened a bug about it.
>
There is none
On 24/09/24 05:02, Bill Cole wrote:
Note
that as of 2024-03-01 (as documented at the DNSWL link above) they have
reduced the free limit to 10,000 queries per 30 days. A site feeding 350
messages/day to SpamAssassin will exceed that limit. That is small even
for "personal" systems.
I've hunted t
Also this:
RuleDescriptionScoreTotalHamCol6SpamCol8
BAYES_40Bayes spam probability is 20 to 40%0.002,784
2,72197.7632.3
BAYES_50Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%0.8012693
73.83326.2
BAYES_60Bayes spam probabi
19 matches
Mail list logo
