Re: rbl's status?

[Matthew Whitworth <matthew@okcomputer.org>]

Bernd Eckenfels wrote:

> In article <[🔎] 871xki7ttk.fsf@enki.rimspace.net> you wrote:
>
> > This sort of thing is why I would rather use any RBL within
> > SpamAssassin, rather than at SMTP delivery time. Even if one of these
> > services goes completely belly up and blacklists the world, I don't
> > automatically lose mail from it.
>
>
> Please  dont do this. You MUST reject mails (by spam scanners, malware
> scanners or blacklists) on the SMTP level, otherwise you become a pretty big
> annoyance to the internet (if you bounce) or will siletnly lose mails (if
> you drop them).

Bouncing or silently dropping potential spam are both obnoxious net 
behavior, but neither has anyhing to do with whether or not one does 
their spam classification before accepting mail at the SMTP level. 
Rejecting false positives can be pretty annoying, too!

I find rejecting potential spam at the SMTP level to be riskier than I'd 
prefer, but this is a judgment call that sysadmins need to make based on 
the needs of their users.  Neither choice forces poor netiquette.

Matthew