Anyone using zen.spamhaus.org?

[Glenn Steen]

On 07/09/06, Res <res at ausics.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Glenn Steen wrote:
>
> >> Ok I know it was late when i posted that, and its early now and im just
> >> sitting down to my first coffee of the day, but... does this still not
> >> mean SA is still missing 60% or so of spam, greylistd or not, if its spam
> >> SA would/should have picked it up regardless, just being greylisted meant
> >> it had to wait a bit of time before marking it as spam rather than
> >> instantly.
> >>
> > Why do you assume the spammers use an MTA that can handle a temp fail?
> > The point of greylisting isn't "wait a bit", it is "retry if you're real":-).
> > So Eds figures add up just fine.
>
> I never assumed that, infact i know they dont, 90% use internal smtp
> code that rarely uses an isp mail server, read my last post a few mins
> ago,  it clarifies where im coming from :)

Yep, clearly a case of "speaking past" each other:-).

> Grey listing is not an option on very large carriers networks IMHO.
> (and the opinion of many other aussie and yank admins i know who also run
> large customer bases) for some reason it does seem to be an extreme
> facination here though for the weitse patsies who try thrash down our
> throats how much we should all use postfix, they on one list were told to
> STFU or be banned as now deemed as UBE spammers ROFLMFAO

Hm, isn't it a good thing that I'm a good-natured easygoing Postfix
fascist then?:-):-) Then again, since I don't agree with the postfix
"party line", or "gospel according to W. Venema), that wouldn't make
me a "wietse patsy" anyway:-D

> We are happy with RBL'd, bad helos  RFC1912 compliance, greet pause on
> sendmail boxes,  and our internal "F-U" access lists ;)
>
Same here, well... minus greet pause, plus reject_unath_pipelining and
SA (and lets not mention _where_ I do my RBLs;-)

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se