On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 04:51:22AM +1200, Simon Lyall wrote: | On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote: | > Dallas Engelken wrote: | > > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ | > > Are you guys serious!! | > > | > > That's blocking over 250,000 hosts!!! The entire SBIS netblock. | > > 64.216.0.0 - 64.219.255.255
| Well RCVD_IN_RFCI *is* listed as a 0.5 score in 2.30. They is very
| much a "use at your own risk" list however.
Actually, RFCI is a collection of 6 or so lists. It sounds like that
netblock is in the 'whois' or 'ipwhois' lists. I tried all the RFCI
lists (with 'warn' statements) and found the (ip)whois lists to be not
very useful. The DSN and postmaster lists are better, but when you
have friends using AOL ... (aol doesn't have a postmaster@ address.
they willfully shut it down and set out a notice of it).
| Perhaps they could be disabled by default?
I think the RFCI lists should be factored out into separate tests for
each list. Disable the whois/ipwhois lists by default.
| Has anyone tried GA on the various RBL tests?
No. The GA and DNSBLs don't mix very well. DNSBLs (theoretically)
can change at any moment, so a DNSBL check is really only meaningful
for messages received at the time the check is made. You wouldn't
want to be doing DNSBL checks on messages that are a month old if the
owner of the IP has changed since then or if the owner fixed their
system (eg open relay).
-D
--
But As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.
Joshua 24:15
http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/
msg06793/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
