Hi, Some time ago, David Jones wrote: > In a related note, I have found that using the senderscore.org score combined > with postscreen's weighting is very effective in quickly catching new > spammers. > > postscreen_dnsbl_sites = > score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[60..69]*2 > score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[50..59]*4 > score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[30..49]*6 > score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[0..29]*8 > score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[90..100]*-6 > score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[80..89]*-4 > score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[70..79]*-2
This has been quite effective, but there have also been some false-positives which I've had to whitelist. I've lowered the 0-29 result a bit so as to not make it a poison pill in my case. I also probably should have asked at the time what your postscreen_dnsbl_threshold is? Mine is 8. Can someone explain how this differs from the bl.score.senderscore.com that's used in the RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL rule? Is there any reason to not use the bl.score.sendrescore.com with postscreen? I don't understand the distinction. Does anyone know where the return result codes are defined? I've looked all over the senderscore website and can't find them. Thanks, Alex
