On 2006-03-30 19:31:44 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
"Nick Nicholas" <Nick(_at_)habeas(_dot_)com> wrote:
It's the latter that I had in mind. What data can be adduced to
demonstrate that we're better off with DNSBLs than without them?
Perhaps something like sharply increased CPU loads would be a useful
data point. Can we point to incidents where server meltdowns
occurred because no DNSBLs were in place?
On my servers, DNSBLs deal with about 80% of ALL email (including
internal email - our mail hub handles everything).
That's impressive. For our servers it was little more than 5% in the
second half of 2005. Most mails (42%) were rejected because they were
addressed to non-existent recipients. 22% were accepted (I don't know
what percentage of those was then filed into the Junk folder via
MUA-side filters). The single most effective anti-spam measure we have
is to filter the hostname given in HELO/EHLO against a few known bad
strings (localhost, friend, our own IP address, etc.) at 7%. Greylisting
used to be quite effective, but is now about comparable to RBLs (but
then far fewer of our users have greylisting enabled).
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Ich sehe nun ein, dass Computer wenig
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | geeignet sind, um sich was zu merken.
| | | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Holger Lembke in dan-am
pgpb1RemkpEQL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg