This is a discussion on Re: URIDNSBL recommended? - SpamAssassin ; Juan Miscaro wrote: > Hi, I recently activated URIDNSBL and my scores went through the roof. > > I'm a little worried about it. > > So first, is this method a recommended in the SA community? > Given that ...
Juan Miscaro wrote:
> Hi, I recently activated URIDNSBL and my scores went through the roof.
> I'm a little worried about it.
> So first, is this method a recommended in the SA community?
Given that it is on by default in all versions of spamassassin from
3.0.0 onward, calling it recommended would be an understatement. Yes,
it's recommended. IMO the URIBLs are p the second most useful part of
SpamAssassin, surpassed only by bayes. I give bayes higher props because
it works on all messages, and it can (and should) be custom trained to
your personal ideas of what is and is not spam. That's a really powerful
system that's really hard to top, so coming in second to it is no shame
on the URIBLs.
You seem concerned about scores, but is it just jacking up your average
spam score, or are you having false positive problems? Elevated spam
scores aren't really much of a problem, but when you start having false
positives, that's an issue to be looking at.
In my experience, the FP rate of all the URIBL_* rules (well, except
URIBL_GREY) are pretty low. I have occasional problems with URIBL_BLACK,
URIBL_WS_SURBL and URIBL_OB_SURBL hitting nonspam email, but this rarely
causes false positives at a threshold of 5.0, and I generally report the
FPs to the appropriate list maintainers when I've got time available to
> And secondly, how can I mod down the (high) scores I'm seeing? I
> tried this in my local.cf file but it was ignored:
> score URIBL_SBL 1.0
Do you use spamd? did you restart it? (spamd only reads .cf and .pre
files on startup)
Are you sure you've got the right directory local.cf? (try a
spamassassin -D --lint and see what SA is using as a "site rules dir")