> >On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote: > >> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > >>> It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent > >>> closure of SORBS. > >> crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level. > > > >In the past, I did some tests to determine which lists caught the most > >spam without FP's, and found that sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org (not the full > >'zen' rbl), was catching over 90% of spam. I also use njabl, though > >lately it looks like it mostly overlaps with spamhaus, but the 'web' and > >'dul' lists from sorbs are still catching a couple of 100 spam each day > >that were not caught by spamhaus. So I would really hate to see SORBS go. > > > >IMPORTANT: If sorbs does not get picked-up by a new host, will SA > >developers be ready to roll-out an SA update to remove the sorbs rules, so > >that we don't suffer a bunch of timeouts? Or how does that work?
On 23.06.09 09:29, Jeff Moss wrote: > WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great > organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a bad name. sorbs makes good job, although there are some whiners not understanding the stuff... > I don't know if SpamAssassin has ever used it. it still does: 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=1 n=2 n=3 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 1.615 0 0.877 # n=0 n=2 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0 0.001 0 0.353 # n=0 n=2 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SMTP 0 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS 0 0.182 0 0.801 # n=0 n=2 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 0 1.117 0 0.619 # n=0 n=2 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_ZOMBIE 0 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Remember half the people you know are below average.
