Thanks for the heads up EE. I haven't noticed any rejections or had any complaints, but I'll take it out anywise if that's the case.
Changes are checked into svn, and will be in the next release. Erik A. Espinoza wrote: > Yo ES, > > I'd take sorbs out of the blacklist. It routinely blocks Gmail, > hotmail and various others big sites. On the site they recommend that > sorbs be used in scoring via spamassassin and not outright rejection. > > Just a thought. > > Erik > > On 3/20/07, Eric Shubes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You might want to change sbl-xbl to zen. sbl-xbl will be going away at >> some >> point. Be aware though, that zen additionally includes dynamic addresses. >> >> I'm running with the qtp moderate blacklists: >> http://qtp.qmailtoaster.com/trac/browser/trunk/etc/blacklists-moderate >> >> You might want to try adding one or two of these and see if it helps >> at all. >> I doubt that it will make a big impact though, as you're already >> catching a >> large number. Every little bit helps though. >> >> Justice London wrote: >> > Yes, probably 80-90% of the mails are rejected outright, but that still >> > leaves about 30-40cps (on average) that get through. The majority seem >> > to be various spambot addresses that haven't made it to blacklist >> > territory yet. Don't have a tremendous number of blacklists in place, >> > though: -r sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org -r bl.spamcop.net -r list.dsbl.org >> > >> > Justice London >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 13:03 -0700, Eric "Shubes" wrote: >> >> Are you using something more than the stock blocklist? That can >> reduce your >> >> scanning load substantially. >> >> >> >> Justice London wrote: >> >>> Yeah, but it's better than just getting the message rejected, which >> >>> seems to be happening right now if something happens to spamassassin. >> >>> This is bad since our clients then call and complain to no end. >> >>> >> >>> Justice London >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 21:31 +0200, Janno Sannik wrote: >> >>>> seems dangerous since this could be exploited by hitting >> mailserver with >> >>>> lot's of spam and getting it to go through that way >> >>>> >> >>>> Justice London wrote: >> >>>>> Is there a way to get simscan/spamassassin to do a soft reject of >> >>>>> messages, say under high load situations where spamassassin isn't >> >>>>> responding properly? I have found that when spamassassin either >> can't >> >>>>> accept a new connection, for whatever reason, that the client is >> passed >> >>>>> a 451 error right away. Is there a way to instead just have >> simscan >> >>>>> fail the spamassassin test and just pass the message un-checked? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Justice London >> >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>>>> >> >> >> -- >> -Eric 'shubes' >> -- -Eric 'shubes' --------------------------------------------------------------------- QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
