Re: Postscreen and exceptions
- On 1/6/2013 6:18 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
> On 01/06/2013 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:Since the DBL is an RHSBL, not DNSBL, it cannot be used with postscreen,
>>> 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.
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
No FPs do date.
- Noel Jones skrev den 2013-01-06 19:40:
> Clearly the current, vastly improved, false positive rate is stillhttp://www.dnswl.org/tech see more on permit_dnswl_client
> not acceptable for everyone.
it does not need to be specific dnswl.org as dnsbl/dnswl, its just an
good example on postfix config