On Thursday, 8 June 2017 9:21:21 AM AEST Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/8/2017 4:54 AM, Graeme Fowler via Exim-users wrote:
> > On 7 Jun 2017, at 22:12, Jerry Stuckle <jerry@???
<
mailto:jerry@smartechhomes.com>> wrote:
> >> Yes, I understand that. But there isn't much I can do if the registrar
> >> doesn't support the create date. That's why it returns -1 if the create
> >> date cannot be found and the test is for 0 <= days <= 7.
> >
> > Aren't you just replicating the 'Day Old Bread' DNSBL here?
> >
> > Look at the check in SpamAssassin - URIBL_RHS_DOB. You could very likely
> > just use a lookup type of dnsdb against that DNSBL instead of calling out
> > to a script.
> >
> > Graeme
>
> Graeme,
>
> No, for two reasons. One is that it relies on an unreliable list - see
> http://www.support-intelligence.com/dob/. Of course, it has been "in
> beta" for years, but that doesn't mean it's reliable. I have disabled
> it on our systems due to false positives in the past.
>
> The second is the list (if it worked) has a fixed five day range. This
> test allows you to set the date range.
>
> Interestingly enough, mail logs show in the first five or so hours after
> I implemented the change 33 emails were rejected. The last one was a
> bit after 2300 UTC last night. We have had zero since that time. Most
> days we would have had at least 50 overnight. Are the spammers actually
> looking at rejections?
Probably not rejections, but possibly slowness (e.g.
https://serverfault.com/
questions/350023/tc-ingress-policing-and-ifb-mirroring to limit the rate they
can send to 300 bit/s or something).
>
> One can only hope :)
>
> Jerry
