relay score less the the require and identified as spam

[Julian Field]

<x-flowed>
At 14:50 29/08/2004, you wrote:
>On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 14:37 +0100, Julian Field wrote:
> > At 14:16 29/08/2004, you wrote:
> > > > >Anyone have an idea ?
> > >Don't block using SBL+XBL - you will get bitten.
> >
> > How often do you think it is a problem? I tag based on SBL+XBL and have
> > never had any complaints.
>
>A LOT of Irish and UK ISP ranges get in there on a regular basis, so we
>had to stop blocking on it a few months ago - digging emails out of
>quarantines can get to be tedious - and now score based on it, which
>gives much more accurate results.
>
>We are primarily a hosting company, but also offer email filtering
>services to 3rd parties. It is unlikely that a corporate IP range will
>be listed, but as a large proportion of both our clients and our
>clients' clients are not using fixed IPs we see a lot of issues with
>Esat, Eircom and other ISPs.
> >From our point of view one false positive is one too many.
>The Spamhaus listing criteria is not at fault, blocking based on it is
>unfortunately.
>If you score based on XBL/SBL you will not see a drop in your success
>rate, as no one rule is going to push an email over the limit (or keep
>it under it)

Fair enough. When I deploy SA3, I will consider making this change so that
we just score against it, rather than block on it.
--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).
</x-flowed>