Re: [gentoo-user] Greylisting vs. reject_rbl_client

[Grant]

> > Do you think the reject_rbl_client stuff is safer than greylisting?
> >
> > - Grant
>
> 1. Blacklists have the HIGHEST false positive rate of any anti-spam
> technique other than sending all mail to /dev/null. 34%
> http://www.paulgraham.com/falsepositives.html
>
> 2. Blacklists block the least amount of spam. 24%
> So it's wrong more often than right.
>
> 3. All Blacklists are run by jackasses. Yes, even the ones you like.
> http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/8_1143551
> http://www.peacefire.org/anti-spam/group-statement.5-17-2001.html
> http://www.networkworld.com/research/2001/0910feat.html
>
> and far too much personal experience*
>
>         In my experience over the past two to three years greylisting and
> simple header checks have blocked 99% of spam before it gets to the
> queue and generated less admin overhead with false positives and other
> nonsense. I'd call its accuracy a solid 99.9% since I've only had to
> whitelist three sets of servers over the years, YMMV. It might not be
> 99.9 for everyone, but it will be far better than blacklisting. There
> are some quirks with greylisting, but overall it's been very effective
> without much downside.
>
> I can't say enough bad things about blacklisting.
>
> kashani
>
> * The first ISP I worked for actually hosted public.com which has
> probably been the most hijacked domain ever. It's a fun Monday morning
> when some moron decided to block your entire ISP without actually
> looking at the headers. It gets slightly less fun the fifth and sixth
> time it happens. Homicide is considered when they assume they are
> automatically right, are as rude as possible to you, and then stall for
> a day before they grudgingly remove you.

I've removed the blacklisting and thank you very much for your
response.  I guess I'm back to greylisting and/or content filtering.

- Grant
-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list