You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com> on 2009/07/15 20:06:54 UTC
Add PSBL?
http://psbl.surriel.com/
Would it be difficult to add PSBL to spamassassin? I have been using it
for a while now and it seems to be very good. It is free.
It seems to be a very simple but effective DNSBL. Anything that
harvested addresses and had sent mail to spam traps gets added. Removal
from the list is quick and easy with a self-serve form.
http://stats.dnsbl.com/
These stats seem to indicate it is of good quality.
Could we add it as an experimental rule for the automated tests at first?
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: Add PSBL?
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
> <riel> I suspect spamassassin will add some load to my DNS servers, but
> I suspect it won't even double the load from that it is today.
And bandwidth. Also, DoS's become much more likely, the more common a BL
is.
> <riel> well, they have my permission to use PSBL
>
> He is sceptical that spamassassin would cause a tremendous amount of
> additional load to PSBL. That being said, he said he can bring up
> additional mirrors within minutes. He and I are actually interested to
> see how much PSBL load increases when people begin using it in
> spamassassin by default.
I agree, likely some very useful information. However, keep in mind that
the larger an employment, the more likely to lag behind. That makes some
form of curve, rather than a single, steep step.
> He got one new mirror volunteer from this list today. Any other volunteers?
Awesome! :)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Add PSBL?
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/15/2009 07:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> the PSBL has been a pearl for many years. Would be a pity to see being
>> hammered to death and vanish like so many others.
>>
>> Could you ask Rik join the list?
>
> Going from the procedure I recall when considering ANY new BL, it is a
> *strict* requirement to ask first if there are any objections and if
> they can stand the load -- and explicitly point out how much of a load
> that could be...
>
He does not wish to join this list.
<riel> I suspect spamassassin will add some load to my DNS servers, but
I suspect it won't even double the load from that it is today.
...
<riel> well, they have my permission to use PSBL
He is sceptical that spamassassin would cause a tremendous amount of
additional load to PSBL. That being said, he said he can bring up
additional mirrors within minutes. He and I are actually interested to
see how much PSBL load increases when people begin using it in
spamassassin by default.
He got one new mirror volunteer from this list today. Any other volunteers?
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: Add PSBL?
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
> the PSBL has been a pearl for many years. Would be a pity to see being
> hammered to death and vanish like so many others.
>
> Could you ask Rik join the list?
Going from the procedure I recall when considering ANY new BL, it is a
*strict* requirement to ask first if there are any objections and if
they can stand the load -- and explicitly point out how much of a load
that could be...
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Add PSBL?
Posted by Yet Another Ninja <sa...@alexb.ch>.
On 7/15/2009 11:52 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 07/15/2009 05:04 PM, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>> We've used the PSBL for quite some time here. Few problems with FP,
>> however it hits a very, very small amount of traffic (past 24 hours =
>> 0.04%) when used after zen and a couple others. Not sure that adding
>> it as a default test would be worth the extra traffic generated.
>> Also, would PBSL be happy with the extra load suddenly added to their
>> servers? Perhaps this should be something you can add if desired
>> (exactly as it is now).
>>
>> -Aaron
>
> My personal mail, zero false positives in RCVD_IN_PSBL in the past 6
> months. 157 out of 800 spam triggered RCVD_IN_PSBL since March 2009.
> This is after outright MTA rejection of XBL listed hosts, so the PSBL
> hit rate might be higher than this.
the PSBL has been a pearl for many years. Would be a pity to see being
hammered to death and vanish like so many others.
Could you ask Rik join the list?
Alex
Re: Add PSBL?
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/15/2009 05:04 PM, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> We've used the PSBL for quite some time here. Few problems with FP,
> however it hits a very, very small amount of traffic (past 24 hours =
> 0.04%) when used after zen and a couple others. Not sure that adding
> it as a default test would be worth the extra traffic generated.
> Also, would PBSL be happy with the extra load suddenly added to their
> servers? Perhaps this should be something you can add if desired
> (exactly as it is now).
>
> -Aaron
My personal mail, zero false positives in RCVD_IN_PSBL in the past 6
months. 157 out of 800 spam triggered RCVD_IN_PSBL since March 2009.
This is after outright MTA rejection of XBL listed hosts, so the PSBL
hit rate might be higher than this.
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: Add PSBL?
Posted by Aaron Wolfe <aa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Justin Mason<jm...@jmason.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 19:06, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> http://psbl.surriel.com/
>>
>> Would it be difficult to add PSBL to spamassassin? I have been using it for
>> a while now and it seems to be very good. It is free.
>>
>> It seems to be a very simple but effective DNSBL. Anything that harvested
>> addresses and had sent mail to spam traps gets added. Removal from the list
>> is quick and easy with a self-serve form.
>>
>> http://stats.dnsbl.com/
>> These stats seem to indicate it is of good quality.
>>
>> Could we add it as an experimental rule for the automated tests at first?
>
> I checked it out _years_ ago and it seemed to have serious false
> positives problems. however it's certainly improved since then, going
> by the stats on Al Iverson's site.
> Could you open a bug on the BZ to get it added?
>
We've used the PSBL for quite some time here. Few problems with FP,
however it hits a very, very small amount of traffic (past 24 hours =
0.04%) when used after zen and a couple others. Not sure that adding
it as a default test would be worth the extra traffic generated.
Also, would PBSL be happy with the extra load suddenly added to their
servers? Perhaps this should be something you can add if desired
(exactly as it is now).
-Aaron
Re: Add PSBL?
Posted by Michael Peddemors <mi...@linuxmagic.com>.
We have been shipping with PSBL as a default enabled list for the last while,
however I should point out my problem with having these in Spam Assassin.
They belong in the SMTP layer first of all ;) and second.. as soon as you do,
some sites that will be using it will use enough resources that all of a
sudden we will find that PSBL will go the way of a lot of other lists and
start charging those users.. or block access to PSBL and cause problems with
email delivery.
As far as PSBL is concerned (other than our own lists :) I would have no
problem voting +1 on PSBL based on our very low FP with that list.
I dont think there is a single MagicMail server out there in use where the
administrators are not using it as a recommended list.
Currently, ISP stats show has the ability to block about 20% of inbound
connections with a 2.3% unique count. (This could be higher, except we use
rate limiters)
This is about equal to SORBS-DUL, and RATS-NOPTR, but about 1/2 the UCE's and
RATS-DYNA.
However, we do believe the list is very safe for SA. (PSBL) I would first
approach PSBL and see if they have any changes planned in the next year tho.
On July 15, 2009, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 19:06, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > http://psbl.surriel.com/
> >
> > Would it be difficult to add PSBL to spamassassin? I have been using it
> > for a while now and it seems to be very good. It is free.
> >
> > It seems to be a very simple but effective DNSBL. Anything that
> > harvested addresses and had sent mail to spam traps gets added. Removal
> > from the list is quick and easy with a self-serve form.
> >
> > http://stats.dnsbl.com/
> > These stats seem to indicate it is of good quality.
> >
> > Could we add it as an experimental rule for the automated tests at first?
>
> I checked it out _years_ ago and it seemed to have serious false
> positives problems. however it's certainly improved since then, going
> by the stats on Al Iverson's site.
> Could you open a bug on the BZ to get it added?
--
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors - President/CEO - LinuxMagic
Products, Services, Support and Development
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" is a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
Re: Add PSBL?
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 19:06, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> http://psbl.surriel.com/
>
> Would it be difficult to add PSBL to spamassassin? I have been using it for
> a while now and it seems to be very good. It is free.
>
> It seems to be a very simple but effective DNSBL. Anything that harvested
> addresses and had sent mail to spam traps gets added. Removal from the list
> is quick and easy with a self-serve form.
>
> http://stats.dnsbl.com/
> These stats seem to indicate it is of good quality.
>
> Could we add it as an experimental rule for the automated tests at first?
I checked it out _years_ ago and it seemed to have serious false
positives problems. however it's certainly improved since then, going
by the stats on Al Iverson's site.
Could you open a bug on the BZ to get it added?