DavidT Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 While this may be seen as a "feature request," it doesn't involve changes to the reporting "codebase or user interface," so I hope it can be allowed to remain in the SpamCop Email System & Accounts, rather than sent to the black hole of the "Feature Requests" zone. Much of my email is double filtered, running through a Barracuda box before it gets to my SpamCop email account, so on false negatives, I often take a look at what the Barracuda thought about the item that the SpamCop filters didn't divert to my Held mail. I'm seeing a significant amount of items in which the Barracuda is reporting "RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL" and then "[(IP #) listed in zen.spamhaus.org]." I note that when Merlyn supplied detailed BL lookups on given IPs, that "zen.spamhaus.org" is sometimes mentioned, such as in this post: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ost&p=57478 where you'll see this: ZEN Spamhaus combined SBL, XBL and PBL - replaces SBLXBL: zen.spamhaus.org -> 127.0.0.11 In our SC email blacklist options, we have both the SBL and the XBL, but we're missing the PBL, which means that spam is getting through to us unnecessarily (and I've got items in my inbox that prove this). So, I'm requesting that either the PBL get added, or that the current SBL and XBL get replaced by the all-encompassing ZEN. Here's the page at Spamhaus that describes ZEN: http://www.spamhaus.org/zen/ Using ZEN instead of both SBL and XBL should speed up the analysis at the SC email servers because only a single query, instead of two, would need to happen. So adding the PBL as a third option would be extra work for the server, while replacing SBL/XBL with ZEN would probably reduce the server load, and due to the quality of the Spamhaus BLs, would not lead to false positives. I just searched the headers of over 3,000 "good" messages in my mail folders and came up with only one false positive (and it was a rather spammy sender). There have been several topics recently about SC email customers seeing more spam slipping through to their inboxes (partly due to the weakness of our un-trained SA implementation, IMO), and this would help. I mentioned it in this recent topic: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8865 but I think the comment was missed, which is why I'm starting a new topic dedicated to the subject. I'm hoping that Trevor drops by soon and will consider this request. I'm also hoping that other SC email customers will chime in with "me, too" responses, because wouldn't we all like to see fewer false negatives making it to our inboxes? DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.