Re: SA 3.0.0 SURBL usage

2004-09-30 Thread Jeff Chan 
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

2004-09-30 Thread Jerry Gaiser 
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

2004-09-29 Thread Raymond Dijkxhoorn 
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

2004-09-29 Thread Matt Kettler 
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