On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:31:27 +0100, "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Doing this after a spamassassin scan is useless, nevertheless. See, my > other reply of today.
People with high accuracy requirements would disagree with you. For some people, including me, false positive rates for straight RBL rejection are unacceptable. I simply can't use straight RBL rejection. Not an option. Rejecting the mail after the spamassassin scan is MUCH more accurate than rejecting based on RBLs alone. And it's definitely a lot better than letting all the spam through. Sure, you don't get any bandwidth advantage, but when a false positive could cost you $thousands, the bandwidth is a lot less important than the accuracy. So, it's not useless. -- snowjack(a)fastmail.fm
