Am 21.03.2010 00:23, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > Voytek Eymont put forth on 3/20/2010 5:52 PM: >> one of the blacklist I use it is ix.dnsbl.manitu.net
got very less problems with them anyway you can avoid problems with rbls if you use them selective i.e only for 4 dotted reverse hostnames or known dyndns ips etc without loosing much filtering >> >> to my knowledge, it has been OK since I've set it up, with no known >> complaints >> >> what is the user's opinions on it's usefulness ? > > This is one of the downsides to fully automated low threshold trap driven > dnsbls. Similar to SORBS, ix.dnsbl.manitu.net will list any IP that sends > over the threshold amount of spam to its traps. I stopped using this dnsbl > long ago for the same reason I stopped using SORBS--too many "FPs" and not > nearly enough blocking of actual spam to justify continued use. > > That said, I only use dnsbls for outright blocking at smtp because I'm > philosophically opposed to content filters such as Spam Assassin. That > said, IMHO, the proper way to use ix.dnsbl.manitu.net, SORBS, and similar > dnsbls is via scoring within something like Spam Assassin, but not for > outright blocking. > > For quite some time now my other spam countermeasures are so effective that > I'm rarely even querying my configured dnsbls, which are only Spamhaus ZEN > and DBL. I just added DBL recently to test it and it catches a few per day, > same as ZEN. YMMV. > everyone has own spam, and own policy to that i have case where zen is massive helpfull in client stage rbls have their pros and contras everyone is free to use them as he likes -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer Germany/Munich/Bavaria
