On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:21 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Getting back to the subject...can anyone enlighten us to the efficacy of
this DNSBL? For example, how does it compare to zen.spamhaus.org,
It hits significantly more spam than zen.spamhaus.org
On my primary mx, today I had 94 mails that hit a zen list but not brbl,
591 that hit a zen list and brbl, and 8042 that hit brbl but not zen.
I am checking -lastexternal addresses only.
Looking through the 2400 or so domains that were marked as spam, I
didn't see any obvious false positives. Looking through the 631 domains
that did not have enough points to be classed as spam, I didn't see more
than one or two that shouldn't have been blocked. granted, i did not
look through the emails themselves, just the domain name.
I'm currently scoring it 1.0, and might raise it up to 2.0 in a couple
of days if nobody starts squawking....
I was actually hoping to use it like I use zen.spamhaus.org and
dul.sorbs.net and just reject emails listed on those. It is very rare
that I get a false positive from either, but their efficacy isn't what it
used to be, either. So, I just configured my tcpserver to invoke rblsmtpd
using b.barracudacentral.org as well as the other two, and after only a
few seconds, the difference was astounding. Here is perhaps 2 minutes
worth of stats:
$ grep -c sorbs bl_stats
9
$ grep -c spamh bl_stats
228
$ grep -c barracud bl_stats
1321
I thought maybe something was broken and it was rejecting everything, but
that doesn't appear to be the case.
However, it may take a day or more to find out of the false positive
ratio of this dnsbl is too high to use it like this.
Has anyone else done this? If so, what does the FP situation look like?
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://3.am
=========================================================================
