Good question there. The rule is shipped with SA by default, regarding if it’s enabled by default - checking against that exact uribl - I’m affraid I can’t provide you with a satisfying answer there, as I was not the initial admin configuring “this” file.
Other than that, this check have been a good friend in my battle against spam, and I’m troubled by the question if it is something within my system that made this start scoring False Positives or if the rbl has been compromised - which I really just can’t see happening. But neither have any change been done to my system. Any thought on this is most welcome. // Dharma Monie<mailto:dha...@dharmacode.se> On 19 Dec 2014, at 12:01, Axb <axb.li...@gmail.com<mailto:axb.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 12/19/2014 11:55 AM, Dharma Monie wrote: Anyone experinced SA rule URIBL (spammhaus/local.cf) score false positive? —> uridnsbl URIBL_SBLXBL sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org<http://sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org><http://sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org>. TXT body URIBL_SBLXBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SBLXBL’) <— All of a sudden, it scores 40-50% false positive, latest 2-3 days. All summin' up to now - users missing a whole lot of mail. That's really all I can say. I've Never seen/experienced this problem before? I'm also having a problem thinking that it is SH URIBL that’s having problem..? Any thought/correction/tip/world-peace are welcome! //Love Dharma Where does that rule come from? I don't see it in the SA default ruleset.