OK, just did that. Sent from Yahoo email into my system, no luck. If
URIDNSBL is reliant on DNS, maybe I should re-install DNS to a newer
version?
Received: from mx10.antispamservers.com ([63.135.66.110]) by
mail.copylite.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211);
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 02:41:47 -0500
Received: by mx10.antispamservers.com (Postfix, from userid 500)
id 6A77B23FED; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 02:38:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web60302.mail.yahoo.com (web60302.mail.yahoo.com
[216.109.118.113])
by mx10.antispamservers.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 89B9B23FEC
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 02:38:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 15992 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Mar 2005 07:37:48 -0000
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=RnHmvFvXbpZ6dr8BbcfEDQedxWxGhoPauv6G9/Ych5VvgrPysQrvZNmghieO1N6pGy/Z58K2
17lYRseWnrI3ODnO/lhboyhBOr3oU4qoxqlKyGbVK+sqi/Parjvoy6yXKZWFKdSXtt2TKjcCQnu5
7T+1j9SjtegPOwZbLWYXL+o= ;
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from [63.135.66.106] by web60302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 28
Feb 2005 23:37:47 PST
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:37:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="0-1741638910-1109662667=:15898"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on
mx10.antispamservers.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Mar 2005 07:41:47.0789 (UTC)
FILETIME=[1FA2D3D0:01C51E32]
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 2:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: I don't think the URIDNSBL is working on spams yet
At 01:47 AM 3/1/2005, Greg Allen wrote:
>Just did upgrade from SA 2.63 to SA 3.0.2, everything looks good, but I
>don't see any evidence that URIDNSBL is doing anything to spam emails so
>far.
>
>Here is the output. Is it broke?
That looks fine, however, in order to test URIDNSBL's it might be worth
having a URI in the message
Try the SURBL test point, which should match:
http://www.surbl-org-permanent-test-point.com/
