On 10/10/18 3:12 PM, Kevin Miller wrote: > I may be wrong, as I haven't implemented it yet, but postscreen may give you > that same functionality at the MTA level. > > ...Kevin > -- > Kevin Miller > Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept. > 155 South Seward Street > Juneau, Alaska 99801 > Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4588 Registered Linux User No: 307357 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grant Taylor [mailto:gtay...@tnetconsulting.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 12:09 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: RBL > > On 10/10/2018 01:56 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: >> However, in general it's better to use DNSBLs at the MTA level, which >> uses a lot less resources than implementing them in Spamassassin. So >> try and set them up in postfix first. > > I conceptually agree. > > However, I prefer to do some RBL testing in SpamAssassin because I can > easily check multiple RBLs and tag messages as spam, or reject, based on > spam score. Conversely, most MTA's implement RBLs as a binary pass / > fail situation. Thus SpamAssassin gives more flexibility and provides a > configurable gray area that MTA's can't do themselves. > > >
Yes. Search the SA archive lists for postscreen. There was a thread a couple of years ago where we listed a good weighted list to allow combining the power of multiple RBLs for better results. I also mentioned implementing postwhite at the same time to bypass postscreen for some senders so you can increase the sensitivity of your postscreen_dnsbl_sites safely. https://github.com/stevejenkins/postwhite -- David Jones
