SpamFilter ISP v3 beta available |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author | |
pcmatt 
Senior Member 
Joined: 15 February 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 116 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 13 April 2006 at 10:20am |
|
Dan, Sorry you took my post the wrong way. I do appreciate your desire to help as you spend your valuable time helping many users on this forum. I wish I had the time to share detailed information with you on our setup and results. That would likely serve us both. Unfortunately I really don't have the time to do that. This is major new features being discussed here and I'm trying my best to participate. |
|
|
-Matt R
|
|
 |
|
|
LogSat
Admin Group 
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4104 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 4:29pm |
|
As I mentioned the SFDB filter is uploading to our database the filter that cuased a reject. We're testing internally a new build that allows the SFDB filter query for IPs that were blocked only by a subset of the available filters. We expect to have this ready within a few days, maybe sooner if all goes well as it has been so far.
We are also evaluating the option to have the Network Reliability to consider a percentage of users rather than an exact number. In a few weeks we'll have gathered enough statistical data hopefully to understand if it is a functional idea or not. Thanks to Marco for the suggestion. |
|
|
|
|
LogSat
Admin Group
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4104 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 April 2006 at 8:31am |
|
We've just uploaded a new beta. Please see forum announcement for details.
|
|
|
|
|
lyndonje
Senior Member
Joined: 31 January 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 192 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 April 2006 at 8:24am |
|
There have been quite a few posts to do with SFBD, and the category
filter is definately a good thing, as I do not want to block IPs based
on them failing somebody elses 'Empty Mail From' rule (which I do not
block against), as I think this breaks an RFC. Likewise I would not
want to block an IP based on somebody else detecting viruses, as I had
enough problems when autoblocking virussenders IPs. So I have checked
the ones I want to check against for the SFDB.
Somebody mentioned earlier that SPF would need some additional options, as some people may block softtails where others dont. How would SFDB cope with this? Since upgrading I'm seeing lines like this: SFDB - Added 80.55.104.202 - Res=Error=0 & SFDB - Removed 212.179.103.180 - Res=Error=0 Is this normal? What does Error=0 signify? Maybe Error=False? I've also seen: SFDB - Added 81.214.188.63 - Res=Blocked Filter is 21, skipping What does this mean? As under the SFDB filter tab, 21 is SFDB match. In my thinking, couldn't this possibly dilute the Network Reliability setting? Another question I have which isn't directly related to the new version or SFBD is how come some tests have the option 'Do not quarantine rejected emails from this blacklist' and other tests dont? |
|
|
|
|
LogSat
Admin Group
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4104 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 April 2006 at 5:47pm |
|
lyndonje,
We do not have any plans to have the SFDB filter look at the SPF settings when IPs are referred, it would add too much complexity... As far as the "Res=Error=0" that is the (yes, ugly...) response our web server provides when all is good with a query. We may change the output in the near future to make it more sensible, but for now the log is only used to troubleshoot problems... so we concentrated on the SFDB functionality rather than the aesthetics. The "21 skipping" means that the SFDB filter is *not* adding the IP to the database when the filter that blocked it is #21. 21 is the SFDB filter, and if we were to update the SFDB with blocks caused by the SFDB filter itself, we'd be creating sort of recursive loops that would cause blocked IPs to have huge counts... Again in the near future we'll be eliminating that log entry (we'll be actually optimizing the code so that SFDB updates won't even be considered in this case). For your last question (quarantine) the honest answer is... that we've been concentrating our time in adding more filters rather than providing that option to all filters. |
|
|
|
|
lyndonje
Guest Group 
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 April 2006 at 6:38pm |
|
OK, so just to clarify. My SF blocks against softtail matches. If an IP gets placed in my IP blacklist cache for failing SPF on softtail x times, then this IP will be submitted to your SFBD also? Just to be clear. Res=Error=0 & 21 skipping is what I thought, again just wanted to be clear. And the last point, nothing crucial, and the new filters are brilliant, but just thought I'd ask as I thought it a little strange. Keep up the good work! |
|
|
|
Topic Options|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.