Re: RBL for e-mail addresses POSTFIX
William Unruh <[email protected]> Sun, 27 Sep 2020 01:01:48 -0000 (UTC)
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.mail.postfix |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2020-09-27, KIKI <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27.09.2020 01:46, Bit Twister wrote: > >> and at a glance looked like it might be what you want. > > Thank you for your answer but this part is well known. It describes > usual RBL usage. My problem is slightly different. I would like to use > e-mail address not the domain as an argument to the RBL check. > > Filtering by domains in any combination is well done in Postfix. We are > lacking RBL check for e-full e-maills like "[email protected]" or > "[email protected]". > RBL can't blacklist the whole gmail and if there are spammers with gmail > accounts they can't blacklist them. > > Can you imagine a company with already blacklisted primary domains? Such > company can create some free accounts just only for spamming because > it's primary domains are rejected. This company may also hide behind > gmail in order to save it's primary domains. The later is not the case > because when found who is behind the spam the primary domains will also > be blacklisted so it is not a good choice for a spammer. > > The worst case scenario is gmail/yahoo/freemail only. If you don't have > gmail account you can't fill the complain ticket because there is no > such thing in google. > > In such case you could report spam to your local/country RBL and this > e-mail would be blacklisted. Rewrite postfix to include this. What you are advocating is to alter the way that RBL works, and then persuading someone else to host such a list and to administer it and then also take the flak when some gets wrongly included because some bad actors decided to get them blacklisted. None of that works right now. You could use procmail or spamassassin to impliment all of this on your own machine trivially, but you would rather someone else do it for you. Am I getting your position correctly? > > >