Kris Deugau wrote:
>
>
> A few remote rules rely on other remote lookups (eg, Vipul's Razor, DCC,
> pyzor) but the stock DNS-based rules alone can catch somewhere up to
> about 85-90% of the spam all by themselves, in my experience. And the
> non-DNS rules still rely on DNS lookups to be able to connect to the
> right remote system.
>
> -kgd
>
>
Thank you for your comment on the effectiveness of DNS-based rules.
85-90% is a lot of spam to catch!
I've been relying on local rules only, many of which I've written myself.
Local rules work well if there is something specific I can target, such
as an 800 number.
Non-local rules should work particularly well for me as I only check my
email 1-3 times a day. Therefore, an offending IP address will likely
have been reported by the time I check email. That's what I'm thinking.
Of course, you never get 100 percent. However, catching most spam
is very very helpful.
Ed Abbiott
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/False-Positive-on-Domain-Name-tp33975030p33979059.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
