From: "Robert LeBlanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The folks that oppose the use of DNSBLs and such are usually against the
> idea of blocking mail outright, based on someone else's
> recommendation. With SpamAssassin you can assign different scores to each
> DNSBL, so that if you trust one of them more than another, you can adjust
> their scores individually. If a particular DNSBL seems too triggerhappy
> for you, or has questionable listing policies, you can disable it entirely
> (by assigning it a score of 0), or just downgrade its weight with a lower
> score.
I oppose them on those grounds and on the grounds that I found it
useless. I manually performed the DNS checks at three different
black lists over the better part of a day. As soon as I saw a spam
I checked it via the DNS lookup. I got maybe one hit out of twenty.
By the time I started getting hits on email addresses spam from
those addresses was no longer appearing in my inbox. I picked twenty
spams at random out of my inbox, which gets maybe 200 - 300 spams a
day. I guess I randomly picked a selection of email that was not from
typical fixed spam addresses. I do get a fair amount of that and maybe
subconsciously I recognized their header style and didn't test them.
Far more importantly I tested "fall through" spam that was missed
by SpamAssassin and fell through my folder rules or actually found
its way into valid folders. On the day I tested Bayes was not running
so I had about 10 such. Not a one of them hit any of the DNS tests I
made until well after I had received them and the relays were no longer
being used.
Since the DNS test is an added load on a rather underpowered machine
that somewhat loses its mind when a collection of kernel patches hit
the Linux Kernel mailing list I turned them off. (When the machine
loses its mind I seem to get two copies of all emal I received for
an hour or two in my mailbox. At least it self recovers.)
{^_^}
