On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 02:18:46PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote: > On Monday, July 19, 2004, 1:19:36 PM, SRH-Lists SRH-Lists wrote: > > >> t/blacklist........ok > >> t/dnsrbl...........ok > >> t/extract_urls.....ok > >> t/mailto...........ok > >> t/open_redirect....# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t at line 37) > >> t/open_redirect....NOK 1# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t > >> at line 44) > >> t/open_redirect....NOK 2# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t > >> at line 52) > >> t/open_redirect....ok 4/5# Looks like you failed 3 tests of 5. > >> t/open_redirect....dubious > >> Test returned status 3 (wstat 768, 0x300) > >> Scalar found where operator expected at (eval 152) line 1, > >> near "'int' $__val" > >> (Missing operator before $__val?) > >> DIED. FAILED tests 1-3 > >> Failed 3/5 tests, 40.00% okay > >> t/spamcopuri.......ok > >> t/whitelist........ok > > > Just adding my "I get the exact same failed tests, no, port 80 is not > > blocked and, yes, it seems to work if I force install it" > > Thanks for the additional feedback. Eric Kolve, author of > SpamCop URI has responded on the SURBL discussion list: > > > "It looks like this is due to rd.yahoo.com implementing a > signature associated with each redirect so anything > that depended on that redirector (open_redirect.t) will fail. I > will fix this and hopefully release shortly... > > --eric" > > > Jeff C. > -- > Jeff Chan > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.surbl.org/
So, if we force the install, are we using only a slightly broken SpamCopURI, or is it a fully functional module, the tests notwithstanding? And it's still better than using BigEvil? Cheers, -- Bob McClure, Jr. Bobcat Open Systems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bobcatos.com People we like the least need our love the most.
