Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Incorrect. > > > list which includes the sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org and cbl.abuseat.org lists > > for example. And ZEN includes dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net. And > > dsn.rfc-ignorant.org is dead now. I am not familiar with the others > > No SORBS list is included in any Spamhaus list, and it never will be. > ZEN is a Spamhaus list, dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net is a SORBS list.
Thank you for providing SORBS for all of these years! It has been a wonderful benefit to everyone. Even if I was wrong by the choice of words it is good that your search fu caused you to respond so that we could enjoy reading your messages here. I spoke imprecisely. Sorry. I apologize for being imprecise. But I think in concept what I said was still true. I was trying to say use the fewest DNS lookups needed. Thank you for pointing out my sloppiness of wording. It gives me a chance to explain further. The dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net is listed as "Dynamic IP Address ranges". http://www.sorbs.net/general/using.shtml http://www.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml The Spamhaus PBL lists IPs that by policy (policy block list) should not be sending email such as IPs in dynamic IP address ranges. http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/ So both of those lists are listing addresses known to be in a dynamic address range. Those are often consumer devices that have become victims of spammer viruses. Viruses that are sending mail from dynamic addresses. Those can be avoided if one avoids receiving email from dynamic address ranges through the use of one of those DNSBLs. They should be required to ring a bell and shout "Stay back. Unclean!" The PBL is included in XEN. http://www.spamhaus.org/zen/ While probably not a strict superset since the data is compiled independently wouldn't it generally be true that every IP address listed in the dynamic IP range in dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net for being a dynamic address would also be listed in the dynamic IP range in pbl.spamhaus.org for being a dynamic address? They are different organizations providing a similarly goaled data set. But the goal is the same so in theory the set of dynamic addresses in each should be quite similar. No? I realize that the policy additions will be different between them. My original point being to use the fewest number of DNS lookups that gets the task done. Expecially on a busy mail server the load from DNS can be appreciable. I would enjoy reading any comments you might have on optimum DNSBL anti-spam usage. Bob
