Re: OT, spam tips.
Quoting tomasz abramowicz <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> sorry about the off topic, but maybe you guys at debian can fix what
> my internet provider is talking about?
> No problem, spam is always interesting to look at (well, at least
> for me ;).
> But when I see that they use SBL/XBL yet they still pass on the
> message to users then my stomach revolts ... it's like a waiter
> at a restaurant serving a dish to a customer and saying "Please pay
> attention, sir, not to eat that dead fly you will find in the food."
If you want that changed, file a bug against Spamassassin. But I hope
this bug will be closed without action. SBL/XBL has too many false
positives to rank higher.
I have tested a large number of RBLs trying to find those with zero
false positives but still a high number of catches. I use the ones
I selected directly in postfix where they reject absolutely. The current
cn-kr.blackholes.us dynablock.njabl.org bl.spamcop.net cbl.abuseat.org
This list is most probably not what other people would use, so anybody
who blindly copies it: don't blame me if you block mail that would have
saved the world.
If the sending IP address is ranked in SBL/XBL this is a good indication
that the mail is Spam. But there are lots of other better criteria.
| email@example.com | http://www.lupe-christoph.de/ |
| "... putting a mail server on the Internet without filtering is like |
| covering yourself with barbecue sauce and breaking into the Charity |
| Home for Badgers with Rabies. Michael Lucas |