Hallo! Du (Santiago Vila) hast geschrieben: > I'm sorry about your bad experiences with some DNSBLs, but we should > judge a DNSBL by their own merits, not by the pitfalls of the others.
one day every RBL goes away, and how it does this isn't predictable. i remember at least one RBL, which started to respond for every request with 'Spamrelay' to get rid of the users. That day (weeks) some people didn'T get any spam. (they also didn't get any mails at all.) So this is definitly no option for us. > What's the purpose of accepting a message which is not going to be > distributed to the list, anyway? Rejecting a message for which we are > 99.999% sure that it's spam it's surely better than sending it to > /dev/null. At least the sender would know that his message has not > been accepted, which does not happen currently. This bug is about someone who is one of the unlucky 0.001% that we have as false positives. > Then you call cbl.abuseat.org a "random" RBL. That's terribly unfair. > The CBL is probably the best DNSBL ever built. Many people do not know > about it because they only remember the ones that gave them a headache > (most probably, the ones you have in mind), which this one does not do. How much money do you want to bet on CBL that they never generate false positives or switching to an insane policy? Maybe using CBL as another score in SpamAssassin is an option, but again: it isn'T an option to give the main communication of Debian into the hand of non-Debian parties. Cord -- http://lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
