On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:12:14AM -0800, Dan Quinlan wrote:
> Maybe we should parse either in the URIBL module until 3.1?
I don't think it's worth it, but wouldn't be opposed to a patch. (it should
be pretty trivial iirc)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Anyone who thinks UNIX is intuitive shoul
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> This has come up before: they're body rules now.
Maybe we should parse either in the URIBL module until 3.1?
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:17:05PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
Any ideas?
This has come up before: they're body rules now.
Sheesh - two seconds of looking on Google for "URIBL_JP_SURBL body"
tells me wha
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:17:05PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
> headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
> Any ideas?
This has come up before: they're body rules now.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"I'm nothing ... I'm navel lint ..." - From the movie True Lies
pgp
Hi there
I have a few Fedora Core2 SA severs - the live ones with 3.0.1 (from
tar), and my workstation running 3.0.0 (from rpm).
A few spam got to my INBOX (shock! horror!), and just fer kicks I ran
them through my local SA - and got 6.2/5.
So 3.0.0 scored them as 6.2/5 - but the original SA se
