Re: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

Luis Hernán Otegui wrote: Well, I have a caching dns running, and it performs (almost) flawlessly. zen.spamhaus.org seems to perform very well here, since when I look at the mail logs I don' find any false positives. I was using cbl.abuseat.org, bu it was too loosy on checks, so many .edu.ar s

Re: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

Oenus Tech Services wrote: > After much testing, we have decided to put the RBLs on Postfix for > performance reasons. Before checking with those RBLs, our system does > EHLO checks against a known-spammer blacklist database as well to filter > the most obvious cases. Then we use zen.spamhaus.org,

RE: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

> spam/virus mail had been blocking before this). We stopped > using bayesian at all since 1.-Many of our customers get Ps, bayesian isn't just for manual training. Maybe set a high/low score in auto learning, but it does help. __

RE: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

> -Original Message- > From: Oenus Tech Services [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:33 AM > To: Luis Hernán Otegui > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA > > > After much testing, we h

Re: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

After much testing, we have decided to put the RBLs on Postfix for performance reasons. Before checking with those RBLs, our system does EHLO checks against a known-spammer blacklist database as well to filter the most obvious cases. Then we use zen.spamhaus.org, safe.dnsbl.sorbs.net, and bl.spamco

RE: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

> You do not mean you run the same RBLs at the MTA and SA level > do you? If the MTA rejects on an RBL there should be nothing > for SA to score on as that message is rejected already. I > currently score in SA on a number of RBLs but would be > interested to know what you regard as safe to use a

Re: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

Luis Hernán Otegui wrote: > Well, I have a caching dns running, and it performs (almost) flawlessly. > zen.spamhaus.org seems to perform very well > here, since when I look at the mail logs I don' find any false > positives. I was using cbl.abuseat.org

Re: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

Well, I have a caching dns running, and it performs (almost) flawlessly. zen.spamhaus.org seems to perform very well here, since when I look at the mail logs I don' find any false positives. I was using cbl.abuseat.org, bu it was too loosy on checks, so many .edu.ar servers from here (I live and w

Re: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

Luis Hernán Otegui wrote: > Hi, list, I know this is one of those "egg and chicken" kind of > questions, but having now the possibility of checking the impact of > various setups, I was wondering if it is more convenient to let the MTA > perform the RBL checks, or disable them and let SA do this jo

Re: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

Bret: You do not mean you run the same RBLs at the MTA and SA level do you?  If the MTA rejects on an RBL there should be nothing for SA to score on as that message is rejected already.  I currently score in SA on a number of RBLs but would be interested to know what you regard as safe to use

RE: RBL tests on MTA vs. RBL rules on SA

> Hi, list, I know this is one of those "egg and chicken" kind > of questions, but having now the possibility of checking the > impact of various setups, I was wondering if it is more > convenient to let the MTA perform the RBL checks, or disable > them and let SA do this job. > Currently I am usin

Re: RBL tests

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 07:56, Matt Kettler wrote: > At 09:36 AM 9/23/2004, Jerry Gaiser wrote: > >Ok, I know I'm probably missing something, but since upgrading to 3.0 > >RBL tests don't seem to being executed. > > > >I use nothing but Bayes and RBL and have had good results through the > >2.6x seri

Re: RBL tests

At 09:36 AM 9/23/2004, Jerry Gaiser wrote: Ok, I know I'm probably missing something, but since upgrading to 3.0 RBL tests don't seem to being executed. I use nothing but Bayes and RBL and have had good results through the 2.6x series, but no reports since the upgrade. I have made to changes to loc