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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
