Ben Poliakoff wrote:
So I've noticed that the URIDNSBL.pm in the 3.1 snapshots seems to
recognize obfuscated URIs much better than in 3.0.x.
In other words I was looking at a message that my relatively well
maintained 3.0.3 installation didn't catch. Then I tried running the
same message thr
* Stuart Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20050603 11:09]:
> >Is there any straightforward way to backport some of this goodness to
> >3.0.x? I don't mind running the development snapshots at home but at
> >work I have to answer to a couple thousand users...
>
> Here is the bug concerning the copy-p
Does 3.04 or 3.1 contain any way to COUNT "Subject:" header lines?
If not they are wildly incomplete, IMAO.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Theo/Daryl!
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 03:14:41AM +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Would it be possible to also include the JP SURBL list in 3.0.4 ?
The JP SURBL list was added to the 3.0 branch two weeks ago.
Already done. ;)
Great!
Hopefully the score will be a little better then its
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 03:14:41AM +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Would it be possible to also include the JP SURBL list in 3.0.4 ?
Already done. ;)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Home Safety Tip #2: Don't fry bacon, when your naked.
pgpk1tTKaoguu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Would it be possible to also include the JP SURBL list in 3.0.4 ?
We get a lot of questions about that right now... Since we withdraw the
data from WS some months ago now, in preparation of SA 3.1. Hopefully it
can also be added in 3.0.4.
The JP SURBL list was added
Theo,
Is there any straightforward way to backport some of this goodness to
3.0.x? I don't mind running the development snapshots at home but at
work I have to answer to a couple thousand users...
We're working on getting 3.0.4 done, which has some backports for things like
obfuscation and s
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:23:56PM -0700, Ben Poliakoff wrote:
> Is there any straightforward way to backport some of this goodness to
> 3.0.x? I don't mind running the development snapshots at home but at
> work I have to answer to a couple thousand users...
We're working on getting 3.0.4 done,
So I've noticed that the URIDNSBL.pm in the 3.1 snapshots seems to
recognize obfuscated URIs much better than in 3.0.x.
In other words I was looking at a message that my relatively well
maintained 3.0.3 installation didn't catch. Then I tried running the
same message through my personal 3.1 sna
