Henrik K wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:19:47AM -0400, Adam Katz wrote: >> *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism. >> >> I have seen SO much DNSWL'd spam that I've had to migrate to using > > Just to be clear, what DNSWLs are you talking about? It's a bit > confusing as the official DNSWL is called "DNSWL". While it > doesn't(?) have an automated "abuse-reporting mechanism", it sure > accepts such reports. > > Maybe it's just me, but there is currently only one proven DNSWL.
Here are the default scores for the DNSWLs I know of: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 0 -1 0 -1 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 0 -4 0 -4 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -8 0 -8 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5 # (nondefault rule, Marc's suggested score) RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED 0 -4.3 0 -4.3 RCVD_IN_IADB_DOPTIN_GT50 0 RCVD_IN_IADB_ML_DOPTIN 0 -6 0 -6 RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED 0 -2.2 0 -2.2 RCVD_IN_SSC_TRUSTED_COI 0 -3.7 0 -3.7 I've had myriads of falsely whitelisted messages hit DNSWL (.org) and HOSTKARMA_W (JMF_W). SpamCop's reporting mechanism has reporting such spam to BSP built in. I'd /love/ to see DNSWL and Marc hook in there too (and/or gain direct access to SA's own reporting mechanism).
