On Thursday, December 9, 2004, 8:14:16 AM, Larry Rosenbaum wrote:
> By the way, if you have a message that's been forwarded in such a way
> that the original recipient addresses become part of the message text,
> the URI extraction code will extract these too. Therefore, if you get
> one of those
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Posted At: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 8:45 PM
> Posted To: sa-users
> Conversation: Feature Request: Whitelist_DNSRBL
> Subject: Re: Feature Request: Whitelist_DNSRBL
>
> On Wednesday, Dece
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 11:41:41 PM, hamann w wrote:
>>> How about a way to use wildcards with uridnsbl_skip_domain? I'd like to
>>> be able to tell the SURBL code not to look up
>>>
>>> *.gov
>>> *.mil
>>> *.edu
>>> and even *.??.us
>>>
>>> since these are unlikely to be hosting spammer
>> How about a way to use wildcards with uridnsbl_skip_domain? I'd like to
>> be able to tell the SURBL code not to look up
>>
>> *.gov
>> *.mil
>> *.edu
>> and even *.??.us
>>
>> since these are unlikely to be hosting spammer web pages.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
Hi,
I have received obscure web tra
Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 9:06:26 AM, Daryl O'Shea wrote:
>>It doesn't cause more lookups for anyone. A local white list file would
>>reduces lookups at the expense of process size (and time if the white
>>list is very large).
>
>
> The SA developers chose an appropriately
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 9:49:55 AM, Daryl O'Shea wrote:
> Additionally, assuming there isn't an extreme query frequency drop off
> after the top 100 or 200 excluded domains, it would be nice to have
> access to the rest of the exclusion list which wouldn't be realistic to
> be storing (an
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 9:21:37 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> My whole idea was skipping the lookup entirley. Why would you want to do a
> lookup for google even if it is cached?
Yep it's a good idea. Which is why we're already doing it. ;-)
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 9:06:26 AM, Daryl O'Shea wrote:
> Bill Landry wrote:
> >> From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> Well we have talked about it and didn't come up with a solid
> >> answer. The idea would cause more lookups and time for those who
> >> don't cac
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 9:07:44 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Actually I was only saying to list the top look ups from the whitelist, not
> the 66,500. That is more of a research and exclusion tool. So no more then
> 200-300 domains. Check it every month for changes and update.
This is alre
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:33:11 AM, Bill Landry wrote:
> Actually, I was thinking of the whitelist that Jeff has already compiled at
> http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelist-domains.sort (currently over 66,500
> whitelisted domains). If you set a long TTL on the query responses, it
> would
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:15:28 AM, David Hooton wrote:
> The floor in offering a DNS based whitelist is that it encourages
> people to place a negative score on it. The problem with this is that
> spammers can poison messages with whitelisted domains, thereby
> bypassing the power of the
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:15:49 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> The idea [of a whitelist DNS list] would cause more lookups and
> time for those who don't cache dns.
That's another excellent argument. Barring caching, which not
all resolvers do, why do a gazillion DNS lookups on yahoo.com,
w3
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:03:35 AM, Bill Landry wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> Was the whitelist you were referring to really the SURBL server-side
>> whitelist?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes! But local SURBL whitelists are needed to
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:47:18 AM, Larry Rosenbaum wrote:
> How about a way to use wildcards with uridnsbl_skip_domain? I'd like to
> be able to tell the SURBL code not to look up
> *.gov
> *.mil
> *.edu
> and even *.??.us
> since these are unlikely to be hosting spammer web pages.
Tru
At 10:58 AM 12/8/2004, Michael Barnes wrote:
> Um. They are?? AFAIK there are absolutely no whitelists to the DNSRBLs in
> SA itself.
I'm not sure if DNSRBLs are the same as URIDNSBLs, or if this was the
intent of the original poster
It was a mistake on Chris's part, and he replied as such.
As for
Chris Santerre wrote:
Assuming that this whitelist would be used to LOWER the score of an email,
and not just exclude them from SURBL. Then we would go thru even
moreresearch before we whitelist a domain. There is a LOT of work that goes
into adding a domain to our whitelist, and that is JUST for e
>
> >> We do have a whitelist that our private research tools do
>poll. The
> >> idea is that if it isn't in SURBL then it is white.
> >>
> >> This also puts more work to the already overworked contributors. ;)
>
>
>How so? The lookup code is already compatible as is, it's
>just a matter
>of
Bill Landry wrote:
>> From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Well we have talked about it and didn't come up with a solid
>> answer. The idea would cause more lookups and time for those who
>> don't cache dns.
It doesn't cause more lookups for anyone. A local white list file would
>-Original Message-
>From: Rosenbaum, Larry M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:47 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Feature Request: Whitelist_DNSRBL
>
>
>How about a way to use wildcards with uridnsbl_skip_do
How about a way to use wildcards with uridnsbl_skip_domain? I'd like to
be able to tell the SURBL code not to look up
*.gov
*.mil
*.edu
and even *.??.us
since these are unlikely to be hosting spammer web pages.
Larry
- Original Message -
From: "David Hooton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:03:35 -0800, Bill Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I agree, and have suggested a whitelist SURBL several times on the SURBL
> > discussion list, but it has always fallen on deaf ears - nary a
respon
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:04 AM
> >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; [EMAIL PR
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:03:35 -0800, Bill Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree, and have suggested a whitelist SURBL several times on the SURBL
> discussion list, but it has always fallen on deaf ears - nary a response.
> It would be nice if someone would at least respond as to why this is not
>-Original Message-
>From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:04 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Feature Request: Whitelist_DNSRBL
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: &
- Original Message -
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Was the whitelist you were referring to really the SURBL server-side
> whitelist?
> >
> >
> > Yes! But local SURBL whitelists are needed to reduce traffic and time.
>
>
> I'd much rather see SURBL respond with 12
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:26:15AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 10:17 AM 12/8/2004 -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
> >OK, we know that the popular domains like yahoo.com and such are hard coded
> >into SA to be skipped on DNSRBL lookups. But it would be great to have a
> >function to add more local
Chris Santerre wrote:
>> Was the whitelist you were referring to really the SURBL server-side
whitelist?
>
>
> Yes! But local SURBL whitelists are needed to reduce traffic and time.
I'd much rather see SURBL respond with 127.0.0.0 with a really large TTL
for white listed domains. Any sensible s
Chris Santerre wrote:
OK, we know that the popular domains like yahoo.com and such are hard coded
into SA to be skipped on DNSRBL lookups. But it would be great to have a
function to add more locally.
Thinking one step bigger, it would be even better to feed this a file. This
way maybe SURBL can
>
>>Thinking one step bigger, it would be even better to feed
>this a file. This
>>way maybe SURBL can create a file for the top hit legit
>domains. Then using
>>SARE and RDJ, people could update that. This would reduce a
>lot of traffic
>>and time.
>
>Wait, now you're bringing SURBL into this.
At 10:17 AM 12/8/2004 -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
OK, we know that the popular domains like yahoo.com and such are hard coded
into SA to be skipped on DNSRBL lookups. But it would be great to have a
function to add more locally.
Um. They are?? AFAIK there are absolutely no whitelists to the DNSRBL
30 matches
Mail list logo
