Re: xbl.spamhaus.org
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:26:59PM +, Robert Brooks wrote:
incidentally, I see no hits for RCVD_IN_SBL, could it be that
[... the rule ...]
is missing the host to query?
looks like it should be the 2nd argument to check_rbl
No, it's a rbl sub test, based off of:
header __RCVD_IN_ZENeval:check_rbl('zen', 'zen.spamhaus.org.')
So there's only a single DNS request which sbl, xbl, and pbl all reference.
I see that in the updated rules, the 3.1.7 rules that doesn't seem to be
the case...
--
Robert Brooks, Network Manager, Cable & Wireless UK
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://wtg.cw.com/
Tel: +44 (0)20 7339 8600 Fax: +44 (0)20 7339 8601
- "What was your username again?" - BOFH-
Re: xbl.spamhaus.org
Robert Brooks wrote: So there's only a single DNS request which sbl, xbl, and pbl all reference. I see that in the updated rules, the 3.1.7 rules that doesn't seem to be the case... must be going blind or crazy :( -- Robert Brooks, Network Manager, Cable & Wireless UK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://wtg.cw.com/ Tel: +44 (0)20 7339 8600 Fax: +44 (0)20 7339 8601 - "What was your username again?" - BOFH-
Re: xbl.spamhaus.org
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:26:59PM +, Robert Brooks wrote:
> incidentally, I see no hits for RCVD_IN_SBL, could it be that
[... the rule ...]
> is missing the host to query?
> looks like it should be the 2nd argument to check_rbl
No, it's a rbl sub test, based off of:
header __RCVD_IN_ZENeval:check_rbl('zen', 'zen.spamhaus.org.')
So there's only a single DNS request which sbl, xbl, and pbl all reference.
--
Randomly Selected Tagline:
"Marriage is a three ring circus: engagement ring, wedding ring, and
suffering." - Unknown
pgpPvPxq1QLqY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: xbl.spamhaus.org
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 04:07:03PM -0500, Dave Koontz wrote: > Is the PBL (codes 10 & 11) stable enough to run in production? I notice > these are not in the current SA rulesets The PBL is in the 3.1 updates fwiw, but it has a small score at the moment. -- Randomly Selected Tagline: "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." -- Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards pgpvN8JdPzyrz.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: xbl.spamhaus.org
> > Is the PBL (codes 10 & 11) stable enough to run in > production? I notice these are not in the current SA rulesets > > >From another list: >FYI: We will 'officially' release the PBL during the coming week, however the PBL zone is currently live as >a public beta. MTAs already querying zen.spamhaus.org are now receiving the PBL data and will therefore be >already rejecting a lot more spam. Anyone who has not yet switch from SBL-XBL to ZEN is encouraged to do so >now. > >More info at http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/ > >(just in case anyone worries: 'Public Beta' is not for ironing out any potential problems with the DNSBL >zone but is for ironing out any potential problems with our ISP signup/admin/remove HTTP pages) > > Steve Linford > The Spamhaus Project > http://www.spamhaus.org -- Tim Boyer Director IT and Engineering Projects Denman Tire Corporation (330) 675-4249
RE: xbl.spamhaus.org
Is the PBL (codes 10 & 11) stable enough to run in production? I notice these are not in the current SA rulesets -Original Message- From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:49 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: xbl.spamhaus.org On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:46:31PM +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote: > http://www.spamhaus.org/zen/index.lasso > seems spamassassin missing 7 and 8 on the return codes ? > should i make a bug on this ? I just pushed out an update for 3.1 which includes 7 and 8. Not sure why those weren't in there before. :( -- Randomly Selected Tagline: Death to all fanatics!
Re: xbl.spamhaus.org
I just pushed out an update for 3.1 which includes 7 and 8. Not sure why those weren't in there before. :( I'm getting NO hits for anything but .2, .4, .5, .11 Len
Re: xbl.spamhaus.org
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:46:31PM +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote: > http://www.spamhaus.org/zen/index.lasso > seems spamassassin missing 7 and 8 on the return codes ? > should i make a bug on this ? I just pushed out an update for 3.1 which includes 7 and 8. Not sure why those weren't in there before. :( -- Randomly Selected Tagline: Death to all fanatics! pgpgNMabpu9w0.pgp Description: PGP signature
