On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Robert Fitzpatrick <rob...@webtent.org> wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>>> I have been experiencing a huge amount of spam getting through to some big
>>> target addresses, mainly from .eu and .info addresses, and would like to
>>> see if someone can find something wrong with my setup. I recently upgraded
>>> to 3.4, but still the same issue. I am using Postfix with Maia Mailguard (a
>>> forked version of amavisd-new). Here is one example, could someone test
>>> this on their own config and see how the scores compare?
>>
>> Are you doing URIBL lookups?
> Thanks, the only one I am using my our postfix setup is spamhaus, we
> discontinued spamcop after an issue with false positives. Can I ask which
> most of you are using with good results? I have skip_rbl_checks in SA set to
> zero, is there more to add?
>
> --
> Robert
>
I have:
score URIBL_BLACK 4.95
in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-scores.cf file (this rule is defined in:
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004000/updates_spamassassin_org/25_uribl.cf
if that’s on your system), and:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::URIDNSBL
in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/init.pre file (this is on Fedora 20).
If you were doing it from scratch, you might try:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::URIDNSBL
skip_rbl_checks 0
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 4.95
But like I said, the canned rules should already include URIBL_BLACK.
-Philip
