Steve Yuroff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's the first report I've had of the spamlist.org database bouncing > mail from a legit source.
Well, they blocked my entire /24 network at PacBell. These addresses are quite static and I'm not aware of any spammers being on it. > Are you saying that spamlist.org and the add-in rulesets I'm using are > crap? They seemed to be useful, legit tools to me, but I'm here to > learn. If it's to be avoided, I'm all for it. I'm saying if you have a performance problem, start with the default installation and see if it has a performance problem before you start trying to optimize things. > My understanding was that the spamlist.org list would cut my processing > load at the MTA level... isn't it easier to not accept the mail, than > to accept it and then process it for ham/spam? Yes and no. First, it's very easy to reject messages. You can get no spam (and not necessarily many complaints since nobody will be able to mail you) if you bounce most everything. Second, most MTAs probably don't do as good a job handling DNS blacklists that are down, so it could be actually slower. It's definitely not as accurate as I discovered. Let me be blunt, when I reply to a question on a mailing list and I get a bounce, I'm not going to be very happy about it and I'm going to call your configuration some well-deserved bad names. I don't know much about spamlist.org, but I'm not impressed so far. My IP isn't listed on a single spam blacklist listed at <http://www.moensted.dk/spam/> or <http://www.declude.com/Junkmail/support/ip4r.htm>. (I have seen it listed on one PacBell blacklist that lists every PacBell IP.) Fortunately, the SpamAssassin developers have been testing DNS blacklists for years and include the very best ones in SA, scoring them with a score optimizer to reduce false positives. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
