On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 02:57, Simon Byrnand wrote: > > Analyzing my spam from the last 3 months, I have had zero in my Inbox > > with RCVD_IN_SBL while about 50% in my SPAM box has RCVD_IN_SBL. > > > > http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/ > >>From my own experience above and their own description on this site, it > > sounds like the SBL is fairly safe and not abusive like other DNSBL's in > > the past have been accused of. Would anyone else agree that the SBL is > > generally safe to add to your MTA's rejection list? > > > > I am soon launching a 1500+ user mail server with spamassassin, so I am > > thinking that if I can cut out 50% of the spam, then I can save a lot of > > CPU and disk resources and run more efficiently, if everything from the > > SBL is indeed spam. > > In fact the SBL is the *only* one of the blocklists that I would trust for > MTA level blocking. We've been using a couple of other lists as well out > of necessity but now that I've just launched SA systemwide I'll shortly be > dropping MTA level blocking of all of the lists except for SBL which I'll > keep for the reasons you outline. > > I've also bumped the score for RCVD_IN_SBL up to 6.0 to catch cases where > SBL blacklisted email gets past the MTA level check because the mail was > (legitimately) forwarded by another ISP's mail server ours - because the > MTA level check ends up checking the IP address of the other ISP's > mailserver instead of the source. > > > If the SBL is generally safe to use for MTA-level rejection, are any of > > the other DNSBL's safe to use in this way too? > > I don't believe so, no, at least not compared to the accuracy of SA. The > SBL is by far the most rigorous in terms of what they will list, and > trying to avoid collateral damage. > > Any open relay list is going to have collateral damage due to the simple > fact that not *all* messages sent through open relays are spam... ;-) > > And some of the other lists (spews ?) actually make a *point* of > deliberately causing collateral damage to try and put pressure on spam > hosting ISP's, but as always, it is the innocent parties who are > disadvantaged by this kind of tactic... > > Just my 2c.. > > Regards, > Simon >
If everyone is in agreement that SBL is effective and safe, why is spamassassin's default score for RCVD_IN_SBL so low? Warren Togami [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
