On 12.10.22 10:41, Noel Butler wrote:
> or save SA doing extra work, and use the RBL's at MTA level - where they
> should be used and have been used for 25 years in the ISP world
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:45:06AM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
you compare uncomparable.
SA does header scanning and can check on non-direct headers, e.g. at the
internal network level.
Also, it can do deep header scanning for open proxies etc.
On 12.10.22 13:08, Matija Nalis wrote:
Also, many uses of RBL (e.g. amavis) do not take them as "absolute
truth" to outright refuse to accept mail, but only as additional
clues to programatically increase or decrease spam score by some
amount (different score depending on the RBL, what other rules matched
in addition to RBL etc) and maybe to autolearn to stop same spam from
other IPs which are not yet blacklisted (and report them to RBLs too).
to be frank, postfix does support this when you use postscreen.
- different weights, even negative, for different lists and mail can be
refused if the resulting score is over a configured value.
But, only at IP directly connecting, which it what makes the main difference
between MTA and SA.
That's why we may use the same DNSBL both at MTA and spamassassin level.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
(R)etry, (A)bort, (C)ancer
