Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- From: Andy David - MVP <adavid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:19:57 -0500
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:12:19 -0000, "Peter Lawton"
<devnull@fakedomain> wrote:
I completely disagree with you there I'm afraid, the most effective
filtering works on parameters other than the actual email contents, for
example HELO/EHLO, sender address, sender domain, SFP, sending IP address,
RDNS, active directory checks etc.
If by effective you mean, "the most", then of course. If by effective
you mean, not dropping legitimate mail, then probably not.
.
Looking at our spam filtering stats content inspection only accounts for 23%
of spam block
Peter Lawton
"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:due3m2hnnl5mn6b1dumsvm32frnipdn6vk@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:26:59 -0000, "Peter Lawton"
<devnull@fakedomain> wrote:
Except using RBLs to drop mail is not the same as SPAM filtering since
you are not checking the contents of the actual message but simply
denying delivery.
- References:
- blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- From: Antonin
- Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- From: Rich Matheisen [MVP]
- Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- From: Antonin
- Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- From: Andy David - MVP
- Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- From: Peter Lawton
- Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- From: Andy David - MVP
- Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- From: Peter Lawton
- blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- Prev by Date: Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- Next by Date: Public Folder Limitation - Quick Question
- Previous by thread: Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- Next by thread: Re: blocked by dnsbl.sorbs.net
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|