My postscreen results
/dev/rob0
non-blocking while watching logs. Here's a discussion of those
results (both non-blocking and blocking.) I've singled out some of
the items which interested me; perhaps they will interest you as
well. (Possibly all old-hat to the ones who leapt in early.)
* Settings
========
postscreen_dnsbl_sites =
zen.spamhaus.org*3
b.barracudacentral.org*2
dnsbl.njabl.org*2
bl.spameatingmonkey.net*2
dnsbl.ahbl.org
bl.spamcop.net
dnsbl.sorbs.net
spamtrap.trblspam.com
swl.spamhaus.org*-5
list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].0*-2
list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].1*-4
list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].[2..255]*-6
postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 3
postscreen_dnsbl_action = enforce
postscreen_greet_action = enforce
* Gripe
=====
The one thing I do not like about it is that the DNSBL given as the
reason for rejection is semi-random, specifically it seems to be the
first one to hit dnsblog(8) for that client.
My postscreen_dnsbl_sites are arranged in trust order. If a real
person was to see one of these rejections, I would prefer that this
person see Spamhaus or Barracuda or NJABL, not SORBS, Spamcop, or
TRBL. I know my workaround is to use postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map,
shown here in pcre:
!/^zen\.spamhaus\.org$/ multiple DNS-based blocklists
But, I'd prefer for logging to sort the dnsblog names by score,
highest first, and use that DNSBL name as the reason.
(This workaround is in place and working fine.)
* Scoring and whitelists
======================
Thanks to Noel for getting me thinking about DNS whitelists. I am
doubtful that they will matter much overall, but they do seem to be
conservative so far. Mine have offset only a few negatively-scored
hosts from my less-trusted (1 point) DNSBLs, mostly. There were 2
DNSWL hits for spameatingmonkey hosts, and zero for AHBL, so I am
considering switching their places (and scores) in the above list.
The largest part of my DNSWL hits are weighted toward lower-scored
hosts. Out of 610 in the sample period I had 474 + 89 + 34 + 13 of
127.0.x.Y where Y is 0, 1, 2, and 3 respectively. I'm not seeing a
lot of hits in SWL so far, and the few I did see were also found in
DNSWL. (No SWL host was listed in any of the DNSBLs.)
Overlap between dnswl.org and the DNSBLs listed was as follows:
Also listed in:
---------------
bl.spameatingmonkey.net 2
bl.spamcop.net 4
dnsbl.sorbs.net 24
spamtrap.trblspam.com 52
Of these, only 5 were listed on more than one DNSBL. All 5 of these
were listed on TRBL; 3 also on spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net (127.0.0.6), and
the other 2 also on bl.spameatingmonkey.net (127.0.0.10). Not
surprisingly, each of the DNSWL listings was a .0 (trust level
"none".)
DNSWL-SEM-TRBL
--------------
174.34.187.66 list.dnswl.org 127.0.15.0
174.34.187.66 bl.spameatingmonkey.net 127.0.0.10
174.34.187.66 spamtrap.trblspam.com 127.0.0.2
174.34.187.67 list.dnswl.org 127.0.15.0
174.34.187.67 bl.spameatingmonkey.net 127.0.0.10
174.34.187.67 spamtrap.trblspam.com 127.0.0.2
Note, the DNSWL-SEM-TRBL triples are right next door to one another,
which suggests that a netblock listing might have been done. These
particular hosts are an ESP:
http://www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/antispam_policy.html
I don't know how good (or bad) they are, but they do offer a free
trial, so they're likely to attract spammers.
DNSWL-SORBS-TRBL
----------------
66.192.165.130 list.dnswl.org 127.0.15.0
66.192.165.130 dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6
66.192.165.130 spamtrap.trblspam.com 127.0.0.2
216.27.93.124 list.dnswl.org 127.0.15.0
216.27.93.124 dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6
216.27.93.124 spamtrap.trblspam.com 127.0.0.2
195.121.247.8 list.dnswl.org 127.0.5.0
195.121.247.8 dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6
195.121.247.8 spamtrap.trblspam.com 127.0.0.2
The first two of those are the ESP iContact.com. The latter is KPN,
an ISP in Europe.
The breakdown of dual listings by DNSWL trust level is what I would
expect:
dnswl.org returns: ## ## per DNSBL
------------------ -- ------------
127.0.x.3 (high) 3 2 TRBL
1 SORBS spam (127.0.0.6)
127.0.x.2 (medium) 0
127.0.x.1 (low) 0 9 SORBS spam (All of these: Facebook)
127.0.x.0 (none) 70 50 TRBL
14 SORBS spam
4 Spamcop
2 Spameatingmonkey
FWIW the three high-trust hosts are all well-known listservers:
outgoing.securityfocus.com and webster.isc.org on TRBL; and
vger.kernel.org on SORBS. No, I'd not want to lose mail from them.
The non-trust hosts are about evenly split between ESPs and ISPs.
These, I did not bother to examine as carefully other than that.
Seems like some more aggressive sites might want to score lower for
dnswl.org's 127.0.[5;15].0 than for other values of the third quad.
Oh, and of course, thanks also to Mathias for running DNSWL. Looks
like you're doing a good job. I signed up and got listed with a
"medium" trust score (which is probably fair; if anything, to be
honest, possibly a bit too high. I'm not full-time on this, and if
something went wrong and we were being used by a spammer, there
could be a delay in our response to complaints.)
* Subjective & Plans, Conclusions
===============================
I have (had!) pretty good spam controls in place before this. I do
not expect to see any substantial decrease in spam getting through,
simply because most that the postscreen blocks was already being
blocked by smtpd. I did see a couple in the last few days before
starting postscreen_dnsbl_action=enforce which were not in Zen, yet
scored above my postscreen_dnsbl_threshold.
Whilst I do not relish a return to the pain of greylisting, I am
planning to activate the deep protocol tests after a bit. I'm
thinking that the post-220 tests might nearly wipe out the spam I get
other than snowshoe, and delays can indeed help with snowshoe in some
cases (giving the DNSBLs more time to list them.)
I'm still not using any kind of content filtering here, but that
remains a possibility for the future. URIBL checking should mop up
the snowshoe spam and "leakage" from the otherwise legitimate mail
hosts.
I am pleased with my list of DNSBL (and dnswl) sites and their
scoring. I could add in a few more and still feel safe, except for
having more DNSBLs to keep up with.
I'm confident in those lists insofar as that they're adhering to
their policies. I'm sure their spamtraps are being hit by the
whitelisted hosts; but I'd not be comfortable using TRBL or SORBS as
a reject_rbl_client lookup.
It's not a FUSSP, and it won't be, unless/until a new secure mail
protocol is adopted and everyone switches to it. Spammers will be a
moving target, always. But I definitely feel like we're ahead in the
game for now. Thanks Wietse, and also thanks to those early adopters
who provided the feedback on postscreen.
--
Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
"/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header