On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 2:20:17 PM, Mike Jackson wrote: >> Your bayes database looked to be reasonably trained. The false-negative >> was labeled 99% spam by Bayes. >> >> I don't see any RBL checks, which might have made the difference on this >> one, if it's already been seen and flagged. Do you have Net::DNS >> installed and the RLB tests enabled? What happens if you feed it through >> spamassassin with the -D flag?
> 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 sbl.spamhaus.org and list.dsbl.org on most of the MTAs I have visibility on. > 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. Hmmmm, ws.surbl.org shouldn't be used as a regular RBL. It has very few IP addresses, and most of those are probably web servers. So it won't match most of the IP address RBL checks a plain old MTA would do. SURBLs are meant to match message body URIs, not mail senders. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
