Hi!
I am not able to lookup surbl
Infact the domain surbl.org does not seem to exist at all.
[root@pop2 bin]# dig surbl.org +short
[root@pop2 bin]#
I am sorry if this is old news .. I have no idea since when SURBL went down ?
[raymond@noc ~]$ dig ns surbl.org
; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.
I am not able to lookup surbl
Infact the domain surbl.org does not seem to exist at all.
[root@pop2 bin]# dig surbl.org +short
[root@pop2 bin]#
I am sorry if this is old news .. I have no idea since when SURBL went
down ?
Thanks
Ram
Sorry for the delay. I don't read the list normally, so please always CC
me if you want to reach me.
On Mittwoch, 16. November 2011 Stefan Jakobs wrote:
> the published ruleset in the update channel is much older than the
> ruleset on the named website.
>
> # dig +short -t txt 2.3.3.70_zmi_germa
* Stefan Jakobs [2011-11-16 11:28]:
> Hi list,
>
> the published ruleset in the update channel is much older than the ruleset on
> the named website.
>
> # dig +short -t txt 2.3.3.70_zmi_german.cf.zmi.sa-update.dostech.net txt
> "20100831"
>
> Is the update with sa-update still suppor
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 11:20 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 13:57 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> >> Basically, without evidence money is not charged to be delisted from any
> >> of those three lists, they're going to stay out of the default rule set.
>
> On 1
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 13:57 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Basically, without evidence money is not charged to be delisted from any
of those three lists, they're going to stay out of the default rule set.
On 17.12.11 12:16, Noel Butler wrote:
Lastly, I would have thought SA dev team woul
> > I've never seen spam larger than 3 MB.
>
> which is much bigger than the 256 kB limit in sa-learn that the OP is having a
> problem with.
Indeed, of course I agree the avg. spam size is much much lower.
But a lot of the "manual" spam, typically originating in asia where people send
out spam
