From users-return-122211-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@spamassassin.apache.org Wed Jul 1 08:49:29 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 1836A180638 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:49:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 94626 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2020 08:49:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 94605 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jul 2020 08:49:26 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 08:49:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 529651813D8 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:49:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_DMARC_STATUS=0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-ec2-va.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Dh6lHue3aNc for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=212.26.193.44; helo=out.roosit.eu; envelope-from=m.roos@f1-outsourcing.eu; receiver= Received: from out.roosit.eu (out.roosit.eu [212.26.193.44]) by mx1-ec2-va.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-ec2-va.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 3A6CABB8FA for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:49:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sx.f1-outsourcing.eu (host-213.189.39.136.telnetsolutions.pl [213.189.39.136]) by out.roosit.eu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 0618n4rL125070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:49:06 +0200 Received: from sx.f1-outsourcing.eu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sx.f1-outsourcing.eu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 0618n3Z1013527; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:49:03 +0200 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:49:03 +0200 From: "Marc Roos" To: jlbrown , users Message-ID: <"H00000710017357c.1593593342.sx.f1-outsourcing.eu*"@MHS> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Detection rate of msbl.org x-scalix-Hops: 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Not much yet, I got this one[1]. But I am having this check as one of=20 the last. Most connections are already failing with 'Possibly forged=20 hostname' [1] Jul 1 01:08:45 spam1 sendmail[19193]: 05UN8fHL019193: Milter:=20 from=3D, reject=3D550 5.7.1 Rejected=20 feedback@service.alibaba.com SPAM (ebl.msbl.org)=20 -----Original Message----- From: James Brown [mailto:jlbrown@bordo.com.au]=20 Sent: maandag 22 juni 2020 16:07 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Detection rate of msbl.org I=E2=80=99m thinking about using the EBL from msbl.org with SA. Can anyone tell me what detection rate they are getting with it? Is it=20 worth using, or would the spam be trapped by other methods (RBL, etc)=20 anyway? Pretty hard to find much information about how useful it is. Thanks, James.