wrote on Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:09:53 -0800: > 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.
You didn't get my point. It's useless if not harmful to bounce a message after you already got it in full. Full stop. Apart from that, I don't know which RBLs you tried but I find RBLs much more reliable than SA. If you use the right ones. The accuracy of RBLs is quite bad if you compare using the same messages. But if you use them careful, the FP rate is *very* low, lower than SA. But the FN rate is quite high at the same point, that's what one needs SA for. Also, only about 25% of our rejections are done by RBL. Another 25% is done by technical criteria and the last 50% are done by our own access list. > > Rejecting the mail after the spamassassin scan is MUCH more accurate > than rejecting based on RBLs alone. I agree that combining the both mathematically should be more accurate, but it needs a *multitude* of system ressources and traffic in exchange for an accuracy increase which is almost not measurable. No good deal in my eyes. Anyway, if you like to go this way, fine, but that doesn't change the fact that bouncing stuff you already have taken in full is bad. It's *no* advantage to you but maybe a burden to others. I don't see any rectification for that. > And it's definitely a lot better > than letting all the spam through. In what form is that better? Bouncing/rejecting and letting thru are not the only options. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
