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

Re: Postscreen and exceptions

Expand Messages
  • John Levine
    ... I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there s been a nearly complete
    Message 1 of 28 , Jan 6, 2013
      >Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.

      I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
      alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
      been a nearly complete turnover of staff and it's much better run.

      Take another look. I find its false positive rates down with
      Spamhaus' now.

      R's,
      John
    • Noel Jones
      ... Glad it works for you. Please keep in mind the original question of this discussion was how to allow wanted mail blocked by spamcop. The way to achieve
      Message 2 of 28 , Jan 6, 2013
        On 1/6/2013 11:29 AM, John Levine wrote:
        >> Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
        >
        > I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
        > alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
        > been a nearly complete turnover of staff and it's much better run.
        >
        > Take another look. I find its false positive rates down with
        > Spamhaus' now.
        >
        > R's,
        > John
        >

        Glad it works for you.

        Please keep in mind the original question of this discussion was how
        to allow wanted mail blocked by spamcop.

        The way to achieve that goal is by using a scoring system, as
        recommended by the spamcop documentation.

        Clearly the current, vastly improved, false positive rate is still
        not acceptable for everyone.



        -- Noel Jones
      • Ron Guerin
        ... I presume you re not talking about the Spamhaus DBL, which is quite awful. - Ron
        Message 3 of 28 , Jan 6, 2013
          On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
          >> Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
          >
          > I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
          > alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
          > been a nearly complete turnover of staff and it's much better run.
          >
          > Take another look. I find its false positive rates down with
          > Spamhaus' now.

          I presume you're not talking about the Spamhaus DBL, which is quite awful.

          - Ron
        • Stan Hoeppner
          ... Since the DBL is an RHSBL, not DNSBL, it cannot be used with postscreen, which is the topic of this thread. Discussion of the merits of [DNS|RHS]BLs is
          Message 4 of 28 , Jan 6, 2013
            On 1/6/2013 6:18 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
            > On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
            >>> Don't use spamcop, or use it only with small weight in a scoring system.
            >>
            >> I agree that Spamcop used to be awful, with vast numbers of false
            >> alarms. But since Ironport bought them several years ago, there's
            >> been a nearly complete turnover of staff and it's much better run.
            >>
            >> Take another look. I find its false positive rates down with
            >> Spamhaus' now.
            >
            > I presume you're not talking about the Spamhaus DBL, which is quite awful.

            Since the DBL is an RHSBL, not DNSBL, it cannot be used with postscreen,
            which is the topic of this thread. Discussion of the merits of
            [DNS|RHS]BLs is off topic on the postfix list, thus I don't desire to
            create a long OT thread, but I am curious as to why you feel the DBL is
            awful. I've had no problems using it for direct rejections with these
            restrictions:

            reject_rhsbl_reverse_client dbl.spamhaus.org
            reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org
            reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamhaus.org

            No FPs do date.

            --
            Stan
          • Benny Pedersen
            ... http://www.dnswl.org/tech see more on permit_dnswl_client it does not need to be specific dnswl.org as dnsbl/dnswl, its just an good example on postfix
            Message 5 of 28 , Jan 7, 2013
              Noel Jones skrev den 2013-01-06 19:40:

              > Clearly the current, vastly improved, false positive rate is still
              > not acceptable for everyone.

              http://www.dnswl.org/tech see more on permit_dnswl_client

              it does not need to be specific dnswl.org as dnsbl/dnswl, its just an
              good example on postfix config
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.