>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
>> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>>> It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
>>> closure of SORBS.
>> crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level.
>
>In the past, I did some tests to determine which lists caught the most
>spam without FP's, and found that sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org (not the full
>'zen' rbl), was catching over 90% of spam. I also use njabl, though
>lately it looks like it mostly overlaps with spamhaus, but the 'web' and
>'dul' lists from sorbs are still catching a couple of 100 spam each day
>that were not caught by spamhaus. So I would really hate to see SORBS go.
>
>IMPORTANT: If sorbs does not get picked-up by a new host, will SA
>developers be ready to roll-out an SA update to remove the sorbs rules, so
>that we don't suffer a bunch of timeouts? Or how does that work?
>
>- Charles
WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great
organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a bad name.
I don't know if SpamAssassin has ever used it.
Jeff Moss
