Re: URIXBL?

2006-10-30 Thread Clifton Royston
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

Re: URIXBL?

2006-10-30 Thread Jeff Hardy
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

Re: URIXBL?

2006-10-27 Thread Jeff Hardy
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

Re: URIXBL?

2006-10-27 Thread Stuart Johnston
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

Re: URIXBL?

2006-10-27 Thread Justin Mason
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

URIXBL?

2006-10-27 Thread Jeff Hardy
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