spamassassin-users June 2010 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > spamassassin-users archives
spamassassin-users: Re: Should Spamhaus default to disabled?

Re: Should Spamhaus default to disabled?

From: Joseph Brennan <brennan_at_nospam>
Date: Sat Jun 12 2010 - 01:16:01 GMT
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org

Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net> wrote:

> We felt the amount of money being asked for was unreasonable, as we felt
> we likely wouldn't see an increase in spam if we turned them off.

We're paying customers of Spamhaus. Their lists account for about 85%
of our spam rejects. I agree it's not cheap, but it's really effective
and very accurate.

But our strategy is to check Spamhaus and SURBL first, and run SA on
what passes those tests. Since those are cheap and fast tests, and
running SA takes more time, we think we win by running SA on only
the remaining 15% of incoming. Even if you are right that SA would
catch pretty much the same messages, we'd need significantly more
hardware to do it only with SA.

I realize this is separate from the question of whether SA should run
Spamhaus tests by default. I just want to make a point about Spamhaus.

Joseph Brennan
Columbia University Information Technology