On tir 13 okt 2009 16:22:55 CEST, "McDonald, Dan" wrote
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 15:42 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote
>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote:
>>> Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, t
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 15:42 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote
> >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote:
> >>> Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this
> >>> data seems to confirm the good reputation of
> On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote
>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote:
>>> Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this
>>> data seems to confirm the good reputation of Spamhaus.
>> Er.. Zen is a combination of SBL, XBL, and PBL. Not just t
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:10:17PM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
>
> Here are the default scores for the DNSWLs I know of:
>
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 0 -1 0 -1
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 0 -4 0 -4
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -8 0 -8
> RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5 # (nondefault rule, Marc's suggested score)
You have to remembe
Matthias Leisi wrote (accidentally off-list):
> Adam Katz schrieb:
>
>> My last report was sent at 2009-04-10 17:50:30 UTC to ad...@dnswl.org
>> with subject "Suggested Change DNSWL Id 3523"
>
> That's cvent-planner.com. Based on your report and others we received,
> we lowered the score for thei
Matthias Leisi wrote:
> Did you report them to us? If there are *myriads*, there must be some
> serious error which we need to fix (IPs/ranges falsely listed,
> inappropriate trust levels listed, sometimes also errors in eg how
> trusted_networks are set up).
My last report was sent at 2009-04-10
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On søn 11 okt 2009 07:19:47 CEST, Adam Katz wrote
>
>> different return code to indicate the hit anyway so that I can act on it
>> anyway. *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism.
>
> spamassassin have firsttrusted for dnsbl same can go for dnswl testi
Adam Katz schrieb:
> I've had myriads of falsely whitelisted messages hit DNSWL (.org) and
Did you report them to us? If there are *myriads*, there must be some
serious error which we need to fix (IPs/ranges falsely listed,
inappropriate trust levels listed, sometimes also errors in eg how
trus
Henrik K wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:19:47AM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
>> *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism.
>>
>> I have seen SO much DNSWL'd spam that I've had to migrate to using
>
> Just to be clear, what DNSWLs are you talking about? It's a bit
> confusing as t
Warren Togami wrote:
The following is an apples to apples comparisons of DNSBL lastexternal
rules against the October 10th, 2009 weekly_mass_check corpora.
HOSTKARMA and SEM are new. Hopefully these masscheck results can help
to identify problems so list quality can improve over time.
http
Just a few comments and corrections.
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 19:44 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
> The following is an apples to apples comparisons of DNSBL lastexternal
Minor nit: Not entirely correct. Different lists have different listing
policies and criteria. A PBL listing for example does NOT
On søn 11 okt 2009 07:19:47 CEST, Adam Katz wrote
different return code to indicate the hit anyway so that I can act on it
anyway. *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism.
spamassassin have firsttrusted for dnsbl same can go for dnswl testing
that mean if you have none or
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:19:47AM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
> *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism.
>
> I have seen SO much DNSWL'd spam that I've had to migrate to using
Just to be clear, what DNSWLs are you talking about? It's a bit confusing as
the official DNSWL is calle
Warren Togami wrote:
> Overlap analysis shows the majority of XBL and PBL are also listed by
> Barracuda. Furthermore Barracuda's list seems to have a similar hit
> % as XBL + PBL combined. Is Barracuda known to aggregate Spamhaus
> data with their own? If so we might be adding redundant scores
On 10/10/2009 09:10 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote:
Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this
data seems to confirm the good reputation of Spamhaus.
Er.. Zen is a combinatio
On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote:
Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this
data seems to confirm the good reputation of Spamhaus.
Er.. Zen is a combination of SBL, XBL, and PBL. Not just the XBL and P
URIBL comparisons.
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20091010-r823821-n
128161 Spam
185199 Ham
==
URIBL Comparison by Safety
==
SPAM%HAM%RANK RULE
50.5349% 0% 1.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL
60.4256% 0.0059% 0.99 URIBL_JP_SURBL
55.0542% 0.0113% 0.98
On 10/10/2009 08:55 PM, João Gouveia wrote:
Hi Warren,
If you don't mind me asking, how does this kind of comparison take into
account the dynamic nature of zombie infected machines? For example, an
IP address may be infected at some point, and be listed in XBL, but
later the client IP address c
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote:
> Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this
> data seems to confirm the good reputation of Spamhaus.
Er.. Zen is a combination of SBL, XBL, and PBL. Not just the XBL and PBL.
The following is an apples to apples comparisons of DNSBL lastexternal
rules against the October 10th, 2009 weekly_mass_check corpora.
HOSTKARMA and SEM are new. Hopefully these masscheck results can help
to identify problems so list quality can improve over time.
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.o
20 matches
Mail list logo
