Am 25.02.2015 um 19:27 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On February 25, 2015 7:22:40 PM John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> wrote:That risks whack-a-mole. Are all of the spams referencing the same host, and is that host *not* already hitting URIBL_BLACK?i long time dropped uribl_black since so much spam is not listed, sending samples to them takes more time then edit local.cf
you drop it because it don't catch all?your beer, but don't recommend such setup given that we had in the current month a total of 4236 spamass-milter rejects starting with 8.0 points and URIBL_BLACK is adjusted to 7.0 in "local.cf"
URIBL_BLACK: 1086 URIBL_SPAM: 743 URIBL_SBL: 487 URIBL_AB_SURBL: 1 URIBL_JP_SURBL: 439 URIBL_MW_SURBL: 10 URIBL_PH_SURBL: 16 URIBL_SC_SURBL: 18 URIBL_WS_SURBL: 282 URIBL_ABUSE_BOTCC: 42 URIBL_ABUSE_MALW: 0 URIBL_ABUSE_PHISH: 2 URIBL_ABUSE_SPAM: 11 URIBL_BOTNETCC: 0 URIBL_MALWARE: 0 URIBL_PHISH: 0 URIBL_GREY: 2891 URIBL_RED: 47 URIBL_ABUSE_REDIR: 1042 URIBL_REDIR: 0 URIBL_RHS_DOB: 114
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
