Matthias Leisi <matth...@leisi.net> wrote: > Andrzej Adam Filip schrieb: > >>> Speaking of which, it may actually make sense to use all of >>> dnswl.org's entries as trusted_networks-entries... >> >> Do you want it even for DNSWL trust levels of "none" and "low"? >> It would be a "brave" suggestion :-) > > Surprisingly, I *am* suggesting to do exactly this :-) > > trusted_networks really means "trusted not to be run by spammers > themselves", or "trusted to report Received:-headers without deliberate > falsification. > > Hopefully, we do not have servers on dnswl.org that are run by spammers, > otherwise it would be very important to have them removed in the first > place.
I do not believe for sure that category "none" deserves privileges you suggest. http://www.dnswl.org/ <quote> Trust Level Description High Never sends spam. Medium Extremely rare spam occurrences, corrected promptly. Low Occasional spam occurrences, actively corrected but less promptly. This is the default for most categories. None Legitimate mail server, may also send spam. This is the default for some categories (eg Email Marketing Provider). </quote> > I created the export job, one file per trust score, so that you can play > away: > > rsync --times rsync1.dnswl.org::dnswl/sa/* /some/destination/path > > ATTENTION: > > Such a huge trusted_networks list will slow down SpamAssassin to an > unacceptable level. It *will* eat 100% of your CPU, unless you applied > the patches for bug 5931: > > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5931 > > Also, read the comments about duplicate entries (as there are quite a > few of them). Would it make sense to store trusted *networks* in btree format? -- [pl>en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : a...@onet.eu English literature's performing flea. -- Sean O'Casey on P. G. Wodehouse
