Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 04:25:20PM -0700, jdow wrote: >>From the last few days: >> >> SURBL Hits >> --- --- >> URIBL_PH_SURBL3 >> URIBL_AB_SURBL5,342 >> URIBL_XS_SURBL3,529 >> URIBL_JP_SURBL 14,423 >> URIBL_SC2_SURBL 5,681 >> URIBL_OB_SURBL 11,742 >> URIBL_SC_SURBL5,097 >> URIBL_WS_SURBL9,931 > It sure would help to know how may of those hits were on ham vice spam. Very little is hitting on ham. Email:11881 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -51.29 AvgScanTime: 1.72 sec Spam: 3004 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 21.54 AvgScanTime: 2.01 sec Ham: 8877 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -75.93 AvgScanTime: 1.62 sec Time Spent Running SA: 5.67 hours Time Spent Processing Spam:1.68 hours Time Spent Processing Ham: 4.00 hours TOP SPAM RULES FIRED RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM 1HTML_MESSAGE 2325 6.68 19.57 77.40 52.03 2URIBL_SBL1949 5.60 16.40 64.880.16 3DCC_CHECK1936 5.56 16.29 64.451.03 4URIBL_JP_SURBL 1815 5.21 15.28 60.420.02 5URIBL_OB_SURBL 1636 4.70 13.77 54.460.26 6URIBL_WS_SURBL 1208 3.47 10.17 40.210.01 7MIME_HTML_ONLY970 2.798.16 32.293.68 8SKX_UNKNOWN_RECEIVED 863 2.487.26 28.73 12.88 9URIBL_SC2_SURBL 801 2.306.74 26.660.00 10HTML_90_100 741 2.136.24 24.677.16 11URIBL_SC_SURBL659 1.895.55 21.940.00 12URIBL_AB_SURBL631 1.815.31 21.010.00 13URIBL_XS_SURBL620 1.785.22 20.640.01 14DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL 582 1.674.90 19.370.55 15HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE 446 1.283.75 14.850.29 16RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 435 1.253.66 14.480.18 17SKX_X 416 1.193.50 13.851.01 18SKX_FREE 362 1.043.05 12.053.09 19RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL 343 0.992.89 11.420.19 20HTML_WEB_BUGS 337 0.972.84 11.220.69 TOP HAM RULES FIRED RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM 1USER_IN_WHITELIST688725.62 57.970.00 77.58 2HTML_MESSAGE 461917.19 38.88 77.40 52.03 3SKX_UNKNOWN_RECEIVED 1143 4.259.62 28.73 12.88 4NO_REAL_NAME 1088 4.059.168.72 12.26 5HTML_90_100 636 2.375.35 24.677.16 6HTML_FONT_BIG 615 2.295.187.866.93 7HTML_30_40536 1.994.512.036.04 8DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE520 1.934.389.655.86 9HTML_50_60479 1.784.033.365.40 10HTML_60_70462 1.723.896.525.20 11HTML_40_50450 1.673.796.765.07 12DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 448 1.673.778.225.05 13SUBJ_ALL_CAPS 354 1.322.980.633.99 14UPPERCASE_25_50 352 1.312.960.633.97 15MIME_HTML_ONLY327 1.222.75 32.293.68 16HTML_20_30327 1.222.750.703.68 17MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR 297 1.112.500.903.35 18SKX_FREE 274 1.022.31 12.053.09 19HOT_NASTY 261 0.972.200.772.94 20USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO 212 0.791.780.072.39 -- Clay Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> When I was a little kid we had a sand box. It was a quicksand box. I was an only child... eventually. - Steven Wright
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
It sure would help to know how may of those hits were on ham vice spam. {^_^} - Original Message - From: "Clay Irving" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >From the last few days: > > SURBL Hits > --- --- > URIBL_PH_SURBL3 > URIBL_AB_SURBL5,342 > URIBL_XS_SURBL3,529 > URIBL_JP_SURBL 14,423 > URIBL_SC2_SURBL 5,681 > URIBL_OB_SURBL 11,742 > URIBL_SC_SURBL5,097 > URIBL_WS_SURBL9,931 > > -- > Clay Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You know my motto: Forgive and uh... the other thing.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
>From the last few days: SURBL Hits --- --- URIBL_PH_SURBL3 URIBL_AB_SURBL5,342 URIBL_XS_SURBL3,529 URIBL_JP_SURBL 14,423 URIBL_SC2_SURBL 5,681 URIBL_OB_SURBL 11,742 URIBL_SC_SURBL5,097 URIBL_WS_SURBL9,931 -- Clay Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You know my motto: Forgive and uh... the other thing.
RE: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
>From the last three days: SpamAssassinRuleHits for SPAM (score 10 and higher): BAYES_99 ( 95%) RAZOR2_CHECK ( 90%) RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 ( 85%) DIGEST_MULTIPLE ( 74%) URIBL_BLACK ( 72%) HTML_MESSAGE ( 71%) DCC_CHECK ( 66%) URIBL_OB_SURBL ( 60%) URIBL_JP_SURBL ( 60%) URIBL_WS_SURBL ( 57%) URIBL_SC2_SURBL ( 57%) <-- PYZOR_CHECK ( 55%) URIBL_SBL ( 52%) URIBL_SC_SURBL ( 50%) URIBL_XS_SURBL ( 44%) <-- URIBL_AB_SURBL ( 43%) MIME_HTML_ONLY ( 40%) RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL ( 39%) FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS ( 31%) RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL ( 30%) Kind Regards, Sander Holthaus
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
On Monday 25 July 2005 01:14 am, Jeff Chan wrote: > Please test sc2 and the revised xs and let us know how they > perform for you. Those with large spam and ham corpora (such as > the SpamAssassin developers) are encouraged to test and please > let us know. Although I don't have a large amount of mail received at my home system, SC2 is scoring fairly well: TOP SPAM RULES FIRED RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM 1PYZOR_CHECK 130 5.87 71.04 100.00 100.00 2DIGEST_MULTIPLE 119 5.38 65.03 91.54 0.00 3RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 116 5.24 63.39 89.23 0.00 4RAZOR2_CHECK 116 5.24 63.39 89.23 0.00 5BAYES_99 112 5.06 61.20 86.15 0.00 6URIBL_JP_SURBL 79 3.57 43.17 60.77 0.00 7DCC_CHECK 73 3.30 39.89 56.15 0.00 8URIBL_SC2_SURBL 71 3.21 38.80 54.62 0.00 9URIBL_OB_SURBL 70 3.16 38.25 53.85 0.00 10HTML_MESSAGE 66 2.98 36.07 50.77 7.55 11URIBL_AB_SURBL 63 2.85 34.43 48.46 0.00 12URIBL_SC_SURBL 56 2.53 30.60 43.08 0.00 13URIBL_SBL 56 2.53 30.60 43.08 0.00 14URIBL_XS_SURBL 56 2.53 30.60 43.08 0.00 15RCVD_IN_XBL 55 2.49 30.05 42.31 0.00 16RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 50 2.26 27.32 38.46 0.00 17URIBL_WS_SURBL 46 2.08 25.14 35.38 0.00 18RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO 35 1.58 19.13 26.92 0.00 19RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 30 1.36 16.39 23.08 0.00 20DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 30 1.36 16.39 23.08 5.66 Chris -- Chris Registered Linux User 283774 http://counter.li.org 06:15:07 up 5 days, 7:16, 1 user, load average: 0.18, 0.21, 0.26 Mandriva Linux 10.1 Official, kernel 2.6.8.1-12mdk Pinking shears get dull just by looking at them -- Murphy's Laws of Sewing n°17
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:58:30PM -0700, jdow wrote: >> I added them yesterday, and I've had no hits. I am hitting other SURBLs: > > Did you restart spamd? Yes. My "no hits" is attributed to bad analysis. :) XS 2,698 times JP 12,251 times XS2 4,733 times -- Clay Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Stones, I love the Stones. I watch them whenever I can. Fred, Barney... - Steven Wright
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
On Thursday, July 28, 2005, 12:29:49 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: > Hi! >> I added them yesterday, and I've had no hits. I am hitting other SURBLs: >> >> URIBL_AB_SURBL 1,345 times >> URIBL_OB_SURBL 2,982 times >> URIBL_SC_SURBL 2,564 times >> URIBL_WS_SURBL 1,111 times > You dont use URIBL_JP_SURBL ? You might wanna add that one. > Bye, > Raymond. LOL You're so helpful! :-) How is the SC2 list working for you? I have a feeling I'm going to ask you to process the XS data with your JP servers (i.e. add it as a feed for JP), but I need to get the benchmarking working first. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Some stats from one of our SA servers. After about two days we had: 9076 SURBL hits 5373 SC2 hits 4813 SC hits 1148 SC2 hits that did not also hit SC 588 SC hits that did not also hit SC2 3701 XS hits 1890 SC2 hits that did not hit XS 218 XS hits that did not hit SC2 So it looks like sc2 hit about 10% more messages than SC. Of the other lists: 7779 JP 6781 OB 5798 WS 4691 AB 7 PH This is without analysis of FPs. Would be very interested to hear how these new lists test out SpamAssassin corpora, or any other corpora or mail servers for that matter. Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
From: "Clay Irving" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I added them yesterday, and I've had no hits. I am hitting other SURBLs: Did you restart spamd? {^_^}
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:13:38PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote: > That will work, but it's technically incorrect since the > standalone lists sc2 and xs aren't bitmask-encoded, which is what > urirhssub is intended for. Standalone lists should be used with > urirhsbl, so correct, working rules for these are: > > > urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A > body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') > describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html > tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net > > score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 > > urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A > body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') > describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing > tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net > > score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 > > > Please give them a try and let us know how they work for you. I added them yesterday, and I've had no hits. I am hitting other SURBLs: URIBL_AB_SURBL 1,345 times URIBL_OB_SURBL 2,982 times URIBL_SC_SURBL 2,564 times URIBL_WS_SURBL 1,111 times -- Clay Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RECONCILIATION, n. A suspension of hostilities. An armed truce for the purpose of digging up the dead. - Ambrose Bierce
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Jeff Chan wrote: On Monday, July 25, 2005, 3:11:40 PM, Tim Litwiller wrote: this is what it took to make it work for me _urirhssub_ URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A127.0.0.2 body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 _urirhssub_ URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A127.0.0.2 body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 That will work, but it's technically incorrect since the standalone lists sc2 and xs aren't bitmask-encoded, which is what urirhssub is intended for. Standalone lists should be used with urirhsbl, so correct, working rules for these are: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 Please give them a try and let us know how they work for you. Jeff C. that works now - either something changed or I did something wrong earlier.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
On Monday, July 25, 2005, 3:11:40 PM, Tim Litwiller wrote: > this is what it took to make it work for me > _urirhssub_ URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A127.0.0.2 > body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') > describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html > tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net > score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 > _urirhssub_ URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A127.0.0.2 > body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') > describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing > tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net > score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 That will work, but it's technically incorrect since the standalone lists sc2 and xs aren't bitmask-encoded, which is what urirhssub is intended for. Standalone lists should be used with urirhsbl, so correct, working rules for these are: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 Please give them a try and let us know how they work for you. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
On Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:06:10 PM, jdow jdow wrote: > From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:33:08 AM, jdow jdow wrote: >> > From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings >> >> >> Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two > lists: >> >> Please try: >> >> urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A127.0.0.2 >> body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') >> describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at > http://www.surbl.org/lists.html >> tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net >> >> score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 >> >> urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A127.0.0.2 >> body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') >> describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing >> tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net >> >> score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 > config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl > URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A127.0.0.2 > config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl > URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A127.0.0.2 > Note that it passes if I use TXT. > {^_^} Did you see my follow up message? "A" without anything after it should work. It worked on my SA3. TXT will also work, but A is preferred. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
jdow wrote: From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. Debug on: debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0xa4b3a18) debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF from @INC debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF=HASH(0xa4b50ec) debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa4c8efc) implements 'parse_config' debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0xa4b3a18) implements 'parse_config' config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. Er - oops. 3.04 {^_^} this is what it took to make it work for me urirhssub URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2 body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhssub URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2 body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:33:08 AM, jdow jdow wrote: > > From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings > > >> Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists: > > Please try: > > urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A127.0.0.2 > body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') > describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html > tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net > > score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 > > urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A127.0.0.2 > body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') > describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing > tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net > > score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A127.0.0.2 config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A127.0.0.2 Note that it passes if I use TXT. {^_^}
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
OK the prior rules were still wrong. These will work: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 Lints just fine on our SA3 with A and no addresses or numbers. (A is preferred over TXT.) Note that we're using urirhsbl not urirhssub since sc2.surbl.org and xs.surbl.org are standalone lists (for testing) and not part of multi.surbl.org. These lists will eventually go away as standalone lists, to very likely go into multi instead. Then you'll need to delete the sc2 rule and change xs to urirhssub and multi. We'll send an official announcement on the SURBL announcement list when this actually happens: http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/announce Until then, please test sc2 and xs and let us know how they work for you. Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
jdow wrote: From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. TXT body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. TXT body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 This passes lint, at least. {^_^} Another --lint test pass on this one, and both Jeff's varients fail to parse on SA 3.0.4 for me. -- -- Martin Hepworth Senior Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Ltd tel: +44 (0)1865 842300 ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean. **
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
jdow pointed out problems with the prior rules for SA 3.0.1+. These ones should work: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A127.0.0.2 body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A127.0.0.2 body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
On Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:33:08 AM, jdow jdow wrote: > From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings >> Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists: Please try: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A127.0.0.2 body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.A127.0.0.2 body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings > Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists: > urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. TXT body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. TXT body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 This passes lint, at least. {^_^}
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists: > > urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. > body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') > describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html > tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net > > score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 > > urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. > body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') > describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing > tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net > > score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. Debug on: debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0xa4b3a18) debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF from @INC debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF=HASH(0xa4b50ec) debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa4c8efc) implements 'parse_config' debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0xa4b3a18) implements 'parse_config' config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. Er - oops. 3.04 {^_^}
Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
sc2.surbl.org, the improved version of the SpamCop SURBL list, is ready for testing. So is the new version of xs.surbl.org, which is now more accurate, has far fewer FPs, etc. sc2 adds resolved IP checks, meaning sites hosted on the same networks are detected immediately upon the first report. It also means that folks should continue to use SpamCop reporting if they want to contribute to a very powerful SURBL list. Your SpamCop reports now have even more power in sc2. In cases of the worst spammers, SpamCop reporting leads to essentially immediate listing in sc2. sc2 is on about 15 public nameservers and xs is on 22. That's probably not enough for running large production servers on, but it should be plenty for corpus checks and mail servers with small to medium message volumes. If you have rsync access to the SURBL zone files you can also mirror the files locally for testing of course. The sc2 and xs zones are currently available via rsync. (If you have a large volume mail server, please apply for rsync access so that you can mirror the zone files locally: http://www3.surbl.org/rsync-signup.html and offload the public nameservers.) After sc2 is tested for a while we will turn it into the production sc.surbl.org list, assuming it has better performance than the current list, which seems quite likely. At that point sc2 will go away, since it will have become sc. xs may go into the 128th bit of multi.surbl.org if it tests well. Please test sc2 and the revised xs and let us know how they perform for you. Those with large spam and ham corpora (such as the SpamAssassin developers) are encouraged to test and please let us know. Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists: urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsURIBL_SC2_SURBL net score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0 urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL') describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsURIBL_XS_SURBL net score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0 SpamAssassin 2.64 rules and scores using SpamCopURI 0.22 or later look like this: uri SC2_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('sc2.surbl.org','127.0.0.2') describe SC2_URI_RBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflagsSC2_URI_RBL net score SC2_URI_RBL 3.0 uri XS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('xs.surbl.org','127.0.0.2') describe XS_URI_RBL Has URI in XS - Testing tflagsXS_URI_RBL net score XS_URI_RBL 2.0 Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.