On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 16:22, Matt Kettler wrote: 
> At 05:15 PM 3/16/2004, Jens E. Madsen Jr. wrote:
> 
> >I diff-ed the 20_dnsbl_test.cf between the 2.44 and the 2.63-1 and
they
> >are the same.
> 
> I find that extreemely hard to believe.. 2.44 doesn't have a 
> 20_dnsbl_test.cf file at all.

You are extremely right, I must have diff-ed it to itself and of course
they were the same. 

> 2.44's DNSBL tests are mixed into 20_head_tests.cf.

Comparing the entries for the RCVD_IN_SBL entries, I get
20_dnsbl_test.cf (2.63):

# SBL is the Spamhaus Block List: http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/
header RCVD_IN_SBL eval:check_rbl_txt('sbl', 'sbl.spamhaus.org.')
describe RCVD_IN_SBL Received via a relay in Spamhaus Block List
tflags RCVD_IN_SBL net

And for the 20_head_tests.cf (2.44) I get:

# SBL is the Spamhaus Block List: http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/ .
header RCVD_IN_SBL rbleval:check_rbl('relay', 'sbl.spamhaus.org.')
describe RCVD_IN_SBL Received via SBLed relay, see
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/
tflags RCVD_IN_SBL              net

Which show the tests are different, or are they? 

I added the 2.44 version of the rules to my /etc/mail/spamassassin
directory, i.e. sbl.cf with the rule name changed and a score. This new
rule did not trigger.

Looking specifically for SBL tags in previous spam, I have them.

> >Has anything changed that would affect BL between 2.44 and 2.61?
> 
> Nearly everything has changed between the two. Different back-end code
was 
> added that supports DNSBL sub-queries (one lookup returns multiple 
> sub-lists, such as NJABL). Different DNSBLs. Many DNSBLs in the 2.44
code 
> are dead and have been dead for a very long time, resulting in
timeouts.
> 

The RCVD_IN_SBL rule above works for 2.44 and not for 2.63 for the email
in question.
> 
> Something tells me that DNSBLs were never enabled on your 2.44 setup.
If it 
> was, you would have been suffering through 30 second timeouts for each
> email processed. Perhaps Net::DNS is not installed, but got installed
when 
> you upgraded???
> 

Is there anything that must be done to enable DNSBLs? But some seem to
work.

The 2.44 setup was out of-the-box Redhat. On my production machine, I
started with that version and quickly upgraded to 2.60 or 2.61. I really
only tested on the 2.44 machine to verify my Internet interface.

Thanks, and now to diff myself,
Jens

Reply via email to