Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Other good RBLs, apart from Zen?

Expand Messages
  • Matthias Schmidt
    ... besides zen.spamhaus.org I use these ones: cbl.abuseat.org bl.spamcop.net Thanks and all the best Matthias
    Message 1 of 40 , May 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Am/On Fri, 2 May 2008 10:48:58 -0300 schrieb/wrote Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman:

      >Hi! Any recommendations for RBLs, apart from zen.spamhaus.org

      besides zen.spamhaus.org I use these ones:

      cbl.abuseat.org
      bl.spamcop.net

      Thanks and all the best

      Matthias
    • Glenn Matthys - Webmind
      ... I found out we have had a few false positives with dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net. Especially from mailservers that send out legitimate commercial opt-in mailings.
      Message 40 of 40 , May 7, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Aaron Wolfe wrote:
        > Here are stats on the last 90 million messages I've processed:
        >
        > Relative effectiveness of spam filtering techniques:
        >
        > Unknown user 31.71% (31.71%) 28536221
        > Greylisted 32.03% (21.87%) 19684139
        > Throttled 20.08% (9.32%) 8389567
        > Relay access denied 0.02% (0.01%) 5783
        > Bogus DNS (Broadcast) 0.02% (0.01%) 5575
        > Bogus DNS (RFC 1918 space) 0.14% (0.05%) 48385
        > Spoofed Address 0.58% (0.21%) 192243
        > Unclassified Event 1.88% (0.69%) 622037
        > Temporary Local Problem 0.00% (0.00%) 1384
        > Require FQDN sender address 0.01% (0.00%)
        > 4136 reject_non_fqdn_sender
        > Require FQDN for HELO hostname 14.14% (5.11%)
        > 4598287 reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
        > Require DNS for sender's domain 1.26% (0.39%)
        > 352926 reject_unknown_sender_domain
        > Require Reverse DNS 2.71% (0.83%)
        > 747785 reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname
        > Require DNS for HELO hostname 0.12% (0.04%)
        > 33230 reject_unknown_helo_hostname
        > The Spamhaus Block List 33.77% (10.05%)
        > 9044310 reject_rbl_client zen.dnsbl
        > The SpamCop Block List 2.85% (0.56%)
        > 505419 reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net <http://bl.spamcop.net>
        > PSBL Block List 0.08% (0.01%)
        > 13323 reject_rbl_client psbl.surriel.com <http://psbl.surriel.com>
        > The Invaluement SIP Block List 32.74% (6.26%)
        > 5635764 reject_rbl_client sip.invaluement.com
        > <http://sip.invaluement.com>
        > SORBS Dynamic IP Address Block List 1.54% (0.20%)
        > 178267 reject_rbl_client dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net <http://dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net>
        > SpamRats No PTR Block List 0.87% (0.11%)
        > 98869 reject_rbl_client noptr.spamrats.com <http://noptr.spamrats.com>
        > SpamRats Dynamic IP Block List 1.03% (0.13%)
        > 116433 reject_rbl_client dyna.spamrats.com <http://dyna.spamrats.com>
        > SpamRats SPAM Block List 0.00%
        > (0.00%) 38 reject_rbl_client spam.spamrats.com
        > <http://spam.spamrats.com>
        > Lashback Block List 0.09% (0.01%)
        > 9892 reject_rbl_client ubl.unsubscore.com <http://ubl.unsubscore.com>
        > UCEPROTECT Level 1 Block List 0.03% (0.00%)
        > 2795 reject_rbl_client dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net
        > <http://dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net>
        > The HostKarma Block List 0.08% (0.01%)
        > 8913 reject_rbl_client blacklist.junkemailfilter.com
        > <http://blacklist.junkemailfilter.com>
        >
        > Total messages: 90000978
        > Total blocked: 78835721 87.59%
        >
        > These are the checks I do with Postfix before SA, in the order I do
        > them. The first percentage is the amount of mail block out of what is
        > "left" by the time the message gets to that check, the second is the
        > percentage of total mail blocked. Sorry if the formatting is strange.
        > Not all of my clients use all of the RBL checks, so some RBLs appear
        > less effective than they really would be if everyone here used them.
        > All clients do use zen, spamcop, sorbs and Rob McEwen's Invaluement SIP
        > RBL (which is clearly an awesome list to add behind zen, blocking over
        > 32% of mail that zen misses). Especially note that the psbl, HostKarma
        > and UCE lists are used only in a few testing domains so their apparently
        > poor performance is not accurate. Please do not think I am saying any
        > particular RBL works poorly, this is just a real world dump of whats
        > happening here.
        >
        > Hope thats useful to someone :) I could get more specific results from
        > domains that use specific sets of RBLs if anyone would like.
        >
        > -Aaron
        >
        >

        I found out we have had a few false positives with dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net. Especially from mailservers that send out legitimate commercial opt-in mailings. Not a good blacklist IMO.

        Glenn


        --
        | Glenn Matthys [glenn@...]
        \ /_ |_ _ _ o _ _| | Zaakvoerder
        \/\/(/_|_)| | ||| |(_| |
        | http://www.webmind.be
        +32 50 67 57 90 | info@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.