Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can any 3.0 guys able to comment if I got the urirhsbl syntax correct:
It's correct, but you might not need to get it correct because the rule will likely ship with 3.0 when it is released if it seems to work well and it helps. I have a concern about the rule. Bill Stern's SpamAssassin blacklist is a blacklist *for* SpamAssassin, so I think the naming of your rule and the DNSBL name (sa.surbl.org) are unintentionally a bit misleading since the list is not maintained by the ASF or SpamAssassin. I think it would be a good idea to rename the DNSBL and the rule to make this clearer. Maybe we should encourage (or help) Bill Stern to pick a snappy name. :-) Also, it would be better from our perspective if we could get multiple RBL results from a single query to reduce overhead. Any of multiple A (like NJABL, SBL/XBL, or SORBS), bitmask A (like OPM or RBL+), or multiple TXT (like SBL/XBL) would probably not be too hard to support (Justin?). > P.S. If we can get some 3.0 developers on [EMAIL PROTECTED], > perhaps we can take the talk there. Carbon-coping [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which is public) for SpamAssassin issues (all versions) is probably the easiest way to get SpamAssassin developers involved in a discussion. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
