From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 15 20:07:15 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DDC16A418 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:07:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1665E13C442 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:07:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m0FK71Qn005341; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:07:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m0FK71sR005338; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:07:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:07:01 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: cpghost In-Reply-To: <20080115154527.GA15932@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> Message-ID: <20080115130137.R5255@wonkity.com> References: <87A9631B-EAC5-41B8-B4C2-001C3ADBA486@identry.com> <200801150237.m0F2bqEg000116@banyan.cs.ait.ac.th> <360AB6AE-B3C1-4CA6-AFC1-378B48B3C6DF@identry.com> <20080115154527.GA15932@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:07:01 -0700 (MST) Cc: John Almberg , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No spam??? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:07:15 -0000 On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, cpghost wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:48:32AM -0500, John Almberg wrote: >> >> So raises the same point that Oliver makes: how trustworthy are these >> blacklists? > > YMMV, of course! > > I'm using spamhaus.org's blacklists for quite some time (many years) > to block spam in postfix and they've been VERY trustworthy so far. > > But I can't say the same for the others, which seem occasionally a > little bit too eager/aggressive and accumulate way too many false > positives. "Trustworthy" is entirely subjective in this case. I've seen people complain about high false positives with a DNSBL that has been extremely trustworthy for me, and then turn around and recommend one that had a very high false positive rate. In general, people should check a DNSBL's blocking criteria and reputation before using it. They should also realize that's it's not an exact science, and be willing to manually whitelist and otherwise adjust things from time to time. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA