Re: [SARE] Whitelist.cf updated
On Friday, May 27, 2005, 4:13:22 PM, Robert Menschel wrote: Hello Jeff, Friday, May 27, 2005, 1:06:46 AM, you wrote: JC On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 5:58:02 PM, Robert Menschel wrote: JC 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from JC listing) in SURBLs? Unlikely, since the web sites mentioned in the emails are rarely the same as the From address or routing server. However, the primary web sites within those emails might be good candidates for the SURBL whitelist. Bob Menschel JC Fair enough. You don't happen to have a list of those JC corresponding websites do you? :-) Not readily handy, but if you can find me a few extra hours :-), I can scan my corpus and put together a partial list. Bob Menschel (and no, this holiday weekend doesn't count -- I'll be back at the office for a network change at 9:00 tonight, spending 4 hours Sat/Sun on an A/P archival program, another 4 on Sunday for G/L and physical inventories, and preparing Monday for major changes to our credit authorization system) No rush, but if you can get them sometime that would be great! :-) Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: [SARE] Whitelist.cf updated
On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 5:58:02 PM, Robert Menschel wrote: JC 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from JC listing) in SURBLs? Unlikely, since the web sites mentioned in the emails are rarely the same as the From address or routing server. However, the primary web sites within those emails might be good candidates for the SURBL whitelist. Bob Menschel Fair enough. You don't happen to have a list of those corresponding websites do you? :-) Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re[2]: [SARE] Whitelist.cf updated
Hello Jeff, Friday, May 27, 2005, 1:06:46 AM, you wrote: JC On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 5:58:02 PM, Robert Menschel wrote: JC 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from JC listing) in SURBLs? Unlikely, since the web sites mentioned in the emails are rarely the same as the From address or routing server. However, the primary web sites within those emails might be good candidates for the SURBL whitelist. Bob Menschel JC Fair enough. You don't happen to have a list of those JC corresponding websites do you? :-) Not readily handy, but if you can find me a few extra hours :-), I can scan my corpus and put together a partial list. Bob Menschel (and no, this holiday weekend doesn't count -- I'll be back at the office for a network change at 9:00 tonight, spending 4 hours Sat/Sun on an A/P archival program, another 4 on Sunday for G/L and physical inventories, and preparing Monday for major changes to our credit authorization system)
Re[2]: [SARE] Whitelist.cf updated
Hello Jeff, Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 10:42:57 PM, you wrote: JC On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 9:19:43 PM, Robert Menschel wrote: Just a quick note that the SARE whitelist rules file has been updated. Documentation at http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#whitelist Bob Menschel JC A couple questions: JC 1. Are these envelope senders or URI domains? Envelope senders. Whitelist runs against the From address and the first trusted Received header recording which external system the email comes from to reach your system. JC 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from JC listing) in SURBLs? Unlikely, since the web sites mentioned in the emails are rarely the same as the From address or routing server. However, the primary web sites within those emails might be good candidates for the SURBL whitelist. Bob Menschel
Re: [SARE] Whitelist.cf updated
On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 9:19:43 PM, Robert Menschel wrote: Just a quick note that the SARE whitelist rules file has been updated. Documentation at http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#whitelist Bob Menschel A couple questions: 1. Are these envelope senders or URI domains? 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from listing) in SURBLs? The description makes the data look pretty sender-ish: # It uses the whitelist_from_rcvd directive, which takes two parameters: a glob-style pattern matching the # From address used, and the domain from which these items are emailed. This domain is compared against the # Received header which documents passage of the email from outside your local network to inside your local network, # in other words the only external Received header that you can trust. If that domain name and the from email # address matches these two items, then the email is whitelisted. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
