Re: SA 3.0.0 SURBL usage
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 3:31:22 PM, Nick Stephens wrote: NS Raymond Dijkxhoorn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) RD wrote today: Do you have Net::DNS installed ? It looks to me you are not using RBL checks at all? I checked my perllocal.pod and saw no reference to NET::DNS on this box, so I installed it. After waiting a little while for some more spam to come in, it is now working PERFECTLY!@ I am a lean, clean, spam eating machine. Thank you so much for pointing out my oversight! :) Thanks for the feedback. I'm adding that to the SURBL FAQ: http://www.surbl.org/faq.html#nettest Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SA 3.0.0 SURBL usage
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 14:47, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: In fact, I cannot see anything in the headers that leads me to believe that SURBL is being used/enforced. Do you have Net::DNS installed ? It looks to me you are not using RBL checks at all? And make sure you're running a recent version of Net::DNS. That bit me when I upgraded. Had it installed, but too old to use. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] One should admire Windows users. It takes a great deal of courage to trust Windows with your data. - Unknown
Re: SA 3.0.0 SURBL usage
Hi! I looked thru the mailing list archives and read a few emails that stated that in 3.0.0 SURBL (specifically, multi) was automatically installed/invoked, however I am not seeing this in the headers when spam is processed. I've looked at a few spams that I have received today, and compared the URL's found in them with those listed on SURBL+ Checker. Even though some of the domains are listed in those lists (eg, URIBL: multi.surbl.org: listed [Blocked, sectility8symposia.com on lists [sc][ws][jp])) they are not necessarily being caught as spam, or at the very least not scoring as high as I would like them too. In fact, I cannot see anything in the headers that leads me to believe that SURBL is being used/enforced. Do you have Net::DNS installed ? It looks to me you are not using RBL checks at all? Bye, Raymond
Re: SA 3.0.0 SURBL usage
At 05:44 PM 9/29/2004, Nick Stephens wrote: I've looked at a few spams that I have received today, and compared the URL's found in them with those listed on SURBL+ Checker. Even though some of the domains are listed in those lists (eg, URIBL: multi.surbl.org: listed [Blocked, sectility8symposia.com on lists [sc][ws][jp])) they are not necessarily being caught as spam, or at the very least not scoring as high as I would like them too. That alone isn't too surprising.. SURBL is highly dynamic and the URL could have been added after you got the spam, but before you made a check. In fact, I cannot see anything in the headers that leads me to believe that SURBL is being used/enforced. That said, you can always check manually by running a message through a copy of spamassassin -D and watch for the checks. Look for lines like: URIDNSBL: domains to query: xxx.com