Anyone using

John Rudd jrudd at
Mon Sep 4 20:17:28 IST 2006

On Sep 4, 2006, at 3:59 AM, Ramprasad wrote:

>> On the other hand, i think still its rather silly to do the RBL 
>> blocking
>> with MailScanner. Let either your mailer or SA do that :P
> Why ? Can you please elaborate on this ?

As someone else pointed out: If you trust the RBL completely, then why 
not reject the message during the SMTP transaction, instead of waiting 
for MS to do it?

If you only partially trust the RBL, then using MS's absolute RBL 
nature is a bad idea, just use SA so that the RBL's decision is one of 
many factors in the spam score.

If you don't trust the RBL at all, then turn it off in all places: MTA, 
MS, and SA.

Note: none of the three situations say "use MS for handling the RBL".

> Having your MTA do the RBL checks may not always be possible. What If I
> want to whitelist some ids of turnoff scan for some recipient ids

sendmail access db and "delay checks" will let you over-ride the RBL's 
behavior via access entries.

I honestly can't think of any reason you _would_ use MS's RBL facility. 
  It's as absolute as doing the RBL entry in the MTA, yet doesn't get 
the advantage of rejecting the message during the SMTP transaction.  It 
doesn't offer me any flexibility over using RBL+access_db+delay_checks. 
  What's the point?  (it's the one feature of MS whose point I've never 

More information about the MailScanner mailing list