Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.26 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <33979059.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ed Abbott <websiterepairguy@gmail.com>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: False Positive on Domain Name
In-Reply-To: <4FD115CF.1050400@vianet.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <33975030.post@talk.nabble.com> <4FD0CB0C.5080707@vianet.ca>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1206070847090.7996@athena.impsec.org>
 <33977290.post@talk.nabble.com> <4FD0F997.5060808@vianet.ca>
 <33977956.post@talk.nabble.com> <4FD115CF.1050400@vianet.ca>


Kris Deugau wrote:
> 
> 
> A few remote rules rely on other remote lookups (eg, Vipul's Razor, DCC,
> pyzor) but the stock DNS-based rules alone can catch somewhere up to
> about 85-90% of the spam all by themselves, in my experience.  And the
> non-DNS rules still rely on DNS lookups to be able to connect to the
> right remote system.
> 
> -kgd
> 
> 

Thank you for your comment on the effectiveness of DNS-based rules.
85-90% is a lot of spam to catch!

I've been relying on local rules only, many of which I've written myself.
Local rules work well if there is something specific I can target, such
as an 800 number.

Non-local rules should work particularly well for me as I only check my
email 1-3 times a day.  Therefore, an offending IP address will likely
have been reported by the time I check email.  That's what I'm thinking.

Of course, you never get 100 percent.  However, catching most spam
is very very helpful.

Ed Abbiott
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/False-Positive-on-Domain-Name-tp33975030p33979059.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.