Steve Tornio wrote: >> >> FEATURE(`dnsbl',`relays.ordb.org', `Rejected - see http://ordb.org/')dnl >> FEATURE(`dnsbl',`sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org',`Rejected - see >> http://spamhaus.org/')dnl >> >> Jun 17 19:49:29 inetmail sendmail[13126]: ruleset=check_relay, >> arg1=[210.213.176.247], arg2=127.0.0.4, >> relay=210.213.176.247.pldt.net [210.213.176.247] (may be forged), >> reject= >> 553 5.3.0 Rejected - see http://spamhaus.org/ >> Jun 17 20:41:26 inetmail sendmail[13390]: ruleset=check_relay, >> arg1=[61.96.162.88], arg2=127.0.0.4, relay=[61.96.162.88], reject=553 >> 5.3.0 Rejected - see http://spamhaus.org/ >> >> >> So given that both spamd and sendmail are configured to talk to >> spamhaus, why is openbsd 3.7 spamd not blocking connections from >> these guys ? > > > Because those addresses are in the XBL, not the SBL. The XBL is > populated by entries from the CBL, which are added when virus-like or > worm-like behavior is detected, and entries are removed at the first > request. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to try to create a > static list for it, when the SBL list is only updated twice a day anyway. > > Of course, you could just go to www.spamhaus.org and read up on how it > works. > > Steve
Thanks for the tip Steve, I've just read up on it...... and it seems to suggest that using sbl+xbl is a good thing. What exactly is spamd going to catch then ?
