On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:02:52AM +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote: > ----- "Marc Perkel" <m...@perkel.com> wrote: > > > > > > Aaron Wolfe wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Chris Owen <ow...@hubris.net> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Mike Cardwell wrote: > > The comparisons on that page are useless. What matters is list policy, > reliability and reputation. > > SpamHaus is hands down the best dnsbl. While I certainly agree that SpamHaus > is very good, I would argue that > Invalument is currently better. It certainly stops a lot more spam here and > I think false positives are still extremely low. Invaluement lists are also > the top performers at my site: > > Total messages: 273235355 > Total blocked: 227710956 83.34% > > Unknown user 32.00% (32.00%) 87427696 > Greylisted 24.88% (16.92%) 46225401 > Throttled 11.03% (5.64%) 15399444 > Relay access denied 0.01% (0.00%) 7034 > Bogus DNS (Broadcast) 0.01% (0.00%) 11692 > Bogus DNS (RFC 1918 space) 0.07% (0.03%) 82135 > Spoofed Address 0.26% (0.12%) 319551 > Unclassified Event 0.77% (0.35%) 949388 > Temporary Local Problem 0.01% (0.00%) 8165 > Require FQDN sender address 0.04% (0.02%) 51022 > Require FQDN for HELO hostname 8.97% (4.02%) 10988455 > Require DNS for sender's domain 0.78% (0.32%) 870643 > Require Reverse DNS 23.83% (9.65%) 26372877 > Require DNS for HELO hostname 0.20% (0.06%) 165157 > The Spamhaus Block List 21.87% (6.74%) 18405091 > The Invaluement SIP Block List 22.14% (5.33%) 14557404 > The SIP/24 Block List 3.84% (0.72%) 1965510 > The Barracuda Reputation Block List 3.89% (0.70%) 1915628 > (several RBLs not widely used snipped) > > We have several hundred domains and each can use it's own filtering > options, so not all RBLs/checks are used on all mail. Checks are > listed in order applied, so a message dropped by "unknown user" for > instance is never seen by "greylisted". > > Invalument lists block over 25% of all messages that make it past all > the checks in front of them, including Spamhaus. That's massive. > Barracuda is not used by a majority of clients and is used after the > others, so the low number is not an indication of poor performance. > I've actually had pretty good luck with it. > > -Aaron > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1 URIBL_INVALUEMENT 27029 47.58 85.13 0.60 > 2 RCVD_IN_INVALUEMENT 26116 45.81 82.26 0.22 > 3 HTML_MESSAGE 25184 79.83 79.32 80.48 > 4 BAYES_99 23445 41.09 73.84 0.12 > 5 RCVD_IN_INVALUEMENT24 23290 40.85 73.35 0.18 > 6 URIBL_BLACK 22372 39.49 70.46 0.74 > 7 RCVD_IN_JMF_BL 16845 30.70 53.06 2.74 > 8 URIBL_JP_SURBL 15962 27.99 50.27 0.12 > 9 DKIM_SIGNED 12137 37.32 38.23 36.18 > 10 DKIM_VERIFIED 11051 33.93 34.81 32.84 > > Chris > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): > President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 - A stupidity tax > Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Yep Invalument is a good list. But there's no public option to compare it. > > > What log script do you good people use to generate the list above ? Is it a > home brew or one we can download so we can compare our own hits ? >
A bit OT but please don't post HTML (Marc!) and make incomprehensible and full message quotes messages like this. Takes good while to scroll and understand all this using mutt.
