On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 09:39:47AM -0500, Jeff Hardy wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 14:46 -0500, Stuart Johnston wrote:
> > Jeff Hardy wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I've been diddling with some tests and wondered why there is a spamhaus
> > > URIBL_SBL, but not URIBL_XBL (or better yet, comb
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 14:46 -0500, Stuart Johnston wrote:
> Jeff Hardy wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've been diddling with some tests and wondered why there is a spamhaus
> > URIBL_SBL, but not URIBL_XBL (or better yet, combined URIBL_SBL-XBL). I
> > can create this myself easy enough, but wond
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 20:38 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> Jeff Hardy writes:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've been diddling with some tests and wondered why there is a spamhaus
> > URIBL_SBL, but not URIBL_XBL (or better yet, combined URIBL_SBL-XBL). I
> > can create this myself easy enough, but wonder
Jeff Hardy wrote:
Hello all,
I've been diddling with some tests and wondered why there is a spamhaus
URIBL_SBL, but not URIBL_XBL (or better yet, combined URIBL_SBL-XBL). I
can create this myself easy enough, but wondered if there was a reason
XBL is not included. Thanks.
XBL is mostly infec
Jeff Hardy writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been diddling with some tests and wondered why there is a spamhaus
> URIBL_SBL, but not URIBL_XBL (or better yet, combined URIBL_SBL-XBL). I
> can create this myself easy enough, but wondered if there was a reason
> XBL is not included. Thanks.
Basicall
Hello all,
I've been diddling with some tests and wondered why there is a spamhaus
URIBL_SBL, but not URIBL_XBL (or better yet, combined URIBL_SBL-XBL). I
can create this myself easy enough, but wondered if there was a reason
XBL is not included. Thanks.
-Jeff