Spam Filter ISP Forums : Possible Feature https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/ Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:21:08 +0000 Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:06:34 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 11.04 360 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=6173 <![CDATA[Spam Filter ISP Forums]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_images/web_wiz_forums.png https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/ <![CDATA[Possible Feature : If an IP is being blacklisted...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10787&title=possible-feature#10787 Author: LogSat
Subject: 6173
Posted: 21 August 2007 at 7:06pm

If an IP is being blacklisted with a score of 60, but the whitelist marks it with a "high" trust lever, the SFDB lookup result will return a value of 7. We are dividing the original thresholds by a factor that depends on the whitelist trust level, not subtracting, so SFDB lookup results will never be negative, they will just be lower to whitelisted IPs.

Please note - While SpamFilter has a minimum SFDB threshold settings, so that any results over that minimum will mark the email as spam, the SFDB server has a minimum value as well that may override SpamFilter' setting. This is done as more companies use the SFDB, we receive more reports about spammers, thus the lookup results for the SFDB will increase.

If SpamFilter's setting is too low, this will increase the chance of false positives. So in this case, if SpamFilter's setting is below what we determine to be a safe minimum, our main SFDB setting will prevail.

If SpamFilter's setting is higher than our safe minimum, then that higher setting prevails over our minimum value on our SFDB server. This is because if the admin opted to stop less spam by setting a higher threshold, because they want to see less false positives, we need to respect that and will not impose our settings.
]]> Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:06:34 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10787&title=possible-feature#10787 <![CDATA[Possible Feature : Roberto, Can you go into it...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10779&title=possible-feature#10779 Author: jerbo128
Subject: 6173
Posted: 21 August 2007 at 5:31pm

Roberto, 
 
Can you go into it a bit more on how the SFDB is tied in with the whitelist.  Does this mean that when an IP is checked, instead of returning a "15", the database may return a -10 (negative number) to indicate that the domain is trusted? 
How will this play in with other filters?
 
thanks
 
jerbo128
]]> Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:31:01 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10779&title=possible-feature#10779 <![CDATA[Possible Feature : Thanks for using dnswl.org data...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10775&title=possible-feature#10775 Author: matthias
Subject: 6173
Posted: 21 August 2007 at 4:33pm

Thanks for using dnswl.org data :-)

For those running their own outgoing mailserver (which no doubt many of you are), you can get added to dnswl.org data yourself by using the request form on our website.

We can't guarantee any particular level of listing, but we will evaluate all requests fairly.

If you have any questions please feel free to ask. As I won't be monitoring this forum regularly, you an reach me by mail (direct: matthias .at. leisi.net, generic: admins .at. dnswl.org).
]]> Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:33:39 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10775&title=possible-feature#10775 <![CDATA[Possible Feature : Thanks to Desperado&#039;s suggestion...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10773&title=possible-feature#10773 Author: LogSat
Subject: 6173
Posted: 21 August 2007 at 4:22pm

Thanks to Desperado's suggestion and matthias' support, we implemented the DNSWL into the SFDB. As of today, the DNSWL data is being incorporated into the SFDB database, so that the results provided by the SFDB lookups provide results already adjusted to take into account the DNSWL trust levels.

In this initial implementation stage the DNSWL data will be updated every few days rather than daily. However since the whitelist changes are very small, this should not be an issue.

Note - there are no changes required to SpamFilter's configurations, everything is handled on the SFDB server.
]]> Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:22:02 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10773&title=possible-feature#10773 <![CDATA[Possible Feature : I am e-mailing you now ]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10606&title=possible-feature#10606 Author: Desperado
Subject: 6173
Posted: 02 August 2007 at 10:29am

I am e-mailing you now]]> Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:29:52 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10606&title=possible-feature#10606 <![CDATA[Possible Feature : Hi all, I&#039;m one of the admins...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10603&title=possible-feature#10603 Author: matthias
Subject: 6173
Posted: 02 August 2007 at 4:05am

Hi all,

I'm one of the admins of dnswl.org. Nice to see you like the idea and that it seems to be of help for you :)

As to the suggested usage of dnswl.org entries: we have four trustlevels: "none", "low", "med", "hi". The frontpage of our website shows the suggested usage for those four levels (http://www.dnswl.org/). Those with a trustlevel of "none" include the servers of big consumer-level providers, including Yahoo and Google Mail, so you may want to be careful about those.

If you plan to include queries to dnswl.org by default in some product, we would be thankful if you can also provide a DNS mirror to help spread the load.

As sgeorge noted above, entries in dnswl.org and their trustlevel can be subject to discussion. While we do have guidelines on how to determine the trustlevel (eg, correct [r]DNS, SWIPed whois entries, track record at senderbase.org and Google Groups, various DNSBL lookups), there is always a subjective element. If in doubt, an entry gets assigned a lower trustlevel, which may be raised over time if traffic patterns allow it.

As I don't monitor this forum regularly, you can also write me directly at matthias /at/ leisi.net or admins /at/ dnswl.org.

-- Matthias
]]> Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:05:53 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10603&title=possible-feature#10603 <![CDATA[Possible Feature : Nice! ]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10601&title=possible-feature#10601 Author: __M__
Subject: 6173
Posted: 01 August 2007 at 11:59pm

Nice!]]> Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:59:03 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10601&title=possible-feature#10601 <![CDATA[Possible Feature : Good idea to centralize something...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10598&title=possible-feature#10598 Author: WebGuyz
Subject: 6173
Posted: 01 August 2007 at 5:38pm

Good idea to centralize something like this as many would benefit.

]]> Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:38:55 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10598&title=possible-feature#10598 <![CDATA[Possible Feature : Stephen, So far, 53 out of 53...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10597&title=possible-feature#10597 Author: Desperado
Subject: 6173
Posted: 01 August 2007 at 4:50pm

Stephen,

So far, 53 out of 53 "False" SFDB positives I queried off that list were correctly listed.  I find that to be a good "first inspection" statistic. My thought (And I have briefly discussed it with Logsat) would be to use the list to prevent additions to the SFDB in the first place.  Then, all the other filters in SFI or SFE would still function but the "Biggies" would not get routinely black-listed.

]]> Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:50:58 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10597&title=possible-feature#10597 <![CDATA[Possible Feature : That seems like a fantastic idea,...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10595&title=possible-feature#10595 Author: sgeorge
Subject: 6173
Posted: 01 August 2007 at 4:21pm

That seems like a fantastic idea, good find!

I'm sure that their criteria list will become inevitably become a source of controversy - both for the ips that are allowed on the list and those that are not.

But I bet this list (and any other breeds out there that may show up) would be extremely useful.  If one could use the dynamic list to whitelist servers, OR merely to allow those servers to simply skip the MAPS checks, it would be extremely handy.

Stephen]]> Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:21:22 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6173&PID=10595&title=possible-feature#10595