On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 14:28 -0800, Morris Jones wrote: > Mike Jackson wrote: > > In my experience, it's more efficient to let the MTA handle the RBL > > checks instead of Spamassassin. I can't remember what MTA the OP was > > using, but it's trivial to set them up in Sendmail. On my employer's > > boxes, I use the spamhaus.org lists, but on my personal box (where I can > > be much more aggressive) I use a few of the rfc-ignorant.org lists and > > ws.surbl.org. The spamhaus lists are checked first, and they're highly > > effective. > > Well of course this is true, but this opens the whole debate about > scoring RBL checks. > > Doing it in the MTA gives you a true or false result. > > Doing it in Spamassassin applies the principals of fuzzy logic by > assigning a score to the different black lists that should more > precisely reflect the accuracy of the list. > > If your black lists never have any false positives, then you're good to > go. :) > > Mojo
I can vouch for that not being the case with spamhaus. They blocked our entire subnet (company I work for) with our provider just because one customer (on another subnet) got hacked and was being used to send spam. It took a LONG time to unlisted even though the problem was fixed as soon as it was first noticed.
