On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 07:59 -0800, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
> For the first time I finally feel like I'm getting closer to getting this
> thing to work - THANKS EVERYONE FOR ALL THE HELP! I did a test with a real
> email this time that included a blocked uri and the it actually scored it!
Congrats. So you managed to write some correct uri rules based on this
already rather extensive thread. However...
You are *still* running with network tests disabled. Again, there's
almost certainly no need for these custom rules and playing whack-a-mole
with new URIs, if you enable network tests. URIBL and SURBL will do a
better job at catching them early than you ever could do on your own.
Even worse, you outright ignored my post explaining this. Despite the
fact, you actually replied to it. And quoted it in full below.
Also, I seriously doubt you tested your rules "with a real email" as you
said. Notice the NO_RELAYS rule hit for an example. The sample was
either severely damaged, or a very bad copy-n-paste from a source that
just does not resemble a raw mail.
> -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
> 0.9 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header
> 20 LOCAL_URI_EXAMPLE_13 URI: LOCAL_URI_EXAMPLE_13
> I'm not there just yet though...is there a spamassassin log file? Although
> it looks to be working from the test, I just sent the same message that was
> scanned from an outside email and it went through.
I told you before to read some basic docs.
That just is not how SA works. It does not reject spam. It does not
block it, dump it, or otherwise prevent mail from "going through".
SA classifies mail. Any action whatsoever based on this assessment (the
overall score and binary ham/spam classification) is the duty of other
tools in your mail processing chain. They need to take action, and do
whatever you tell 'em to do with spam.
Useless full-quote snipped. Please go back in the thread and read my
explanation again, carefully.
If you want us to help, you should stop ignoring our advice. It might
surprise you, but there may be better solutions to your obvious problem.
Better than maintaining a list of bad uri rules on your own...
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
