On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Axb <axb.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have to post a spam sample, pls use pastebin and post the full msg
>
> On 06/06/2014 11:32 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> We’re getting a lot of spam that contains URL’s which look like (remove the
>> ####):
>>
>> http://mab####sut.com/20220362/vuxtxumsrnsst6unlornt3umtfuwznvv~5v0nmro0ysnx_u_usqzxsrwlln_t_t_tomtdyumplnl_ts_tn_ttce/unnt7uqs_mrn_ttdfw3yuw_h_03xo_gl_67_8gw_buutxveumpomte3yuo_tlltcx3yumsrnsstziaumte3umm/lst0x0ut0xut7eunty1um_ttf1umnrt2utezdeuteutyutw2utv3utvaut0u_0czz_xz66_a298zty8ux97xvd/e_o8zetdy97utd3aut09ultcdaumtd3un_unsrrtw3utwv8utweut80utecegutfnutaeut263yutdzeumt9cul_ol
>
>> Some observations… The URL’s should be fairly easy to filter against via a
>> regex. Anyone have some working rules they could share?
>
> Pls note than any rule shared via lists usually looses its teeth within a few
> hours .-)
Well, it depends on the nature of the rule… Some characteristics are less
fungible than others.
>
>>
>> The other thing is, the URL is almost always hosted by solarvps.com, in the
>> CIDR block 65.181.64.0/18.
>>
>> Is there an easy way to do a domain lookup on the host portion of the URL
>> and then filter it if it’s in this subnet?
>
> Yes, there is:
>
> run a local A record blacklist with rbldnsd
>
> 65.181.64.0/18
>
> and a rule like, for example:
>
> uridnssub YOUR_A_URIBL yourabl.example.net. A 127.0.0.2
> body YOUR_A_URIBL eval:check_uridnsbl('YOUR_A_URIBL')
> describe YOUR_A_URIBL URL domain A rec listed by YOUR_A_URIBL
> score YOUR_A_URIBL 5.0
> tflags YOUR_A_URIBL net a
>
>
If I used local A records, for a /18 network, I’d need all 2^14 records, right?
Because a lookup is always on a full dotted-quad (in reverse order)…
I tried using multi.uribl.com and couldn’t get this to work.
I had:
urirhssub L_URIBL_BLACK multi.uribl.com. A 2
body L_URIBL_BLACK eval:check_uridnsbl('L_URIBL_BLACK')
describe L_URIBL_BLACK Contains a URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
tflags L_URIBL_BLACK net
score L_URIBL_BLACK 20.0
set, and also:
skip_rbl_checks 0
at the end of /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-mimedefang.cf set.
Running this over the message in a file:
spamassassin -t --lint -D < /tmp/cable.eml
I get:
…
Jun 9 14:57:13.029 [32297] dbg: rules: compiled meta tests
Jun 9 14:57:13.032 [32297] dbg: check: is spam? score=-2.348 required=5
Jun 9 14:57:13.032 [32297] dbg: check:
tests=L_EMPTY_SENDER,MISSING_DATE,MISSING_HEADERS,NO_RECEIVED,NO_RELAYS
Jun 9 14:57:13.032 [32297] dbg: check:
subtests=__BODY_TEXT_LINE,__EMPTY_BODY,__EMPTY_SENDER,__GATED_THROUGH_RCVD_REMOVER,__HAS_FROM,__HAS_MESSAGE_ID,__HAS_MSGID,__HAS_SUBJECT,__L_UNDISCLOSED2,__MISSING_REF,__MISSING_REPLY,__MSGID_OK_DIGITS,__MSGID_OK_HOST,__MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE,__NONEMPTY_BODY,__NOT_SPOOFED,__SANE_MSGID,__TO_NO_ARROWS_R,__UNUSABLE_MSGID
Jun 9 14:57:13.033 [32297] dbg: timing: total 1908 ms - init: 1384 (72.5%),
parse: 1.17 (0.1%), extract_message_metadata: 11 (0.6%), get_uri_detail_list:
1.06 (0.1%), tests_pri_-1000: 9 (0.5%), compile_gen: 202 (10.6%), compile_eval:
37 (1.9%), tests_pri_-950: 6 (0.3%), tests_pri_-900: 7 (0.4%), tests_pri_-400:
6 (0.3%), tests_pri_0: 404 (21.2%), tests_pri_500: 75 (3.9%)
so I’m not sure why it’s failing to find nqtel.com in the uribl.com database.
What am I missing?
-Philip
