Discuss September 2004

discuss@lists.surbl.org

62 participants
229 discussions

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: pj.surbl.org - list from Joe Wein and Pr olocation data
by Chris Santerre 20 Sep '04

20 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:01 PM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: pj.surbl.org - list from Joe Wein and >Prolocation data > > >On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 7:06:34 PM, David Hooton wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:43:32 -0700, Jeff Chan ><jeffc(a)surbl.org> wrote: >>> we thought it might be useful to make the PJ data available as >>> a separate list, at least within multi.surbl.org, the combined >>> SURBL. We'd like to get your comments on this. > >> I think having a separate list makes sense if the data quality is >> different to that of the pooled data it was previously connected to. > >>> We're also wondering whether the PJ data should be taken out of >>> WS, or left in, if we do make PJ a distinct list. > >> No point in lowering the hitrate of the superset, any >additional score >> added to a spam is better than none at all. > >>> Please comment, > >> The greater choice and control we provide SURBL users the better. If >> we have the ability to sustainably break data out like this and >> provide ongoing data quality ratings to aid score adjustments I think >> we should do it. > >Thanks for your feedback David. Does anyone else have comments >about the possibility of PJ? Making separate lists from the WS >data is a little different from the direction we've been going >lately, so it would be nice to get comments on it. We're still >somewhat undecided about whether to do it or not.... > >As you can see from the first message about this, the FP rates >of PJ look significantly lower than WS as a whole. AS usual, I'm thinking different from everyone else :) I do NOT like the idea of more lists. 1) The lists are dynamic, so FP rates will change. 2) Too many lists make it more difficult for the devs to GA and perceptron run all of them. Causing a slow down in scoring for SA and others. 3) Run a diff and find out where we have our FPs. 4) More lookups for mutli 5) Too many list options will drive some potential users away. 6) K.I.S.S. The only reason I see having more lists is if the data is specifically different throughout the whole list. ie: phishing, UC, regular spam, blog, ect.... His list data is the same kind as WS. So really....why seperate? We just keep getting our FP rate lower and it will all be good. --Chris (The devils advocate.)

6 19

Problems installing SpamCopURI-0.22
by Overdijk, Harrie 20 Sep '04

20 Sep '04

Dear SURBL Guru's, I'm still using the latest small-version of the BigEvil.cf custom rule for SpamAssassin. Because I would like to use the several SURBL 'lists' I would like to install Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.22 on a - RedHat 7.3 system with - perl 5.6.1, - amavisd-new-20030616.p10 and - SpamAssassin 2.64 I already upgraded the system with perl-URI-1.32 because the previous version was way too low. However Make test fails with: # make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -Iblib/arch -Iblib/lib -I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/i386-linux -I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1 -e 'use Test::Harness qw(&runtests $verbose); $verbose=0; runtests @ARGV;' t/*.t t/blacklist.........Can't locate Test/More.pm in @INC ... BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at t/blacklist.t line 3. t/blacklist.........dubious Test returned status 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) t/dnsrbl............Can't locate Test/More.pm ... etc ending in: BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at t/whitelist.t line 3. t/whitelist.........dubious Test returned status 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) FAILED--7 test scripts could be run, alas--no output ever seen make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 2 If I use a 'binary' ;-) RPM package I get the error: # rpm -ivh perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.22-1.noarch.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] file /usr/share/man/man3/Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf.3pm.gz from install of perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.22-1 conflicts with file from package perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.64-1 file /usr/share/man/man3/Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus.3pm.gz from install of perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.22-1 conflicts with file from package perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.64-1 Boy, duplicate manpages... What am I doing wrong? Do I need extra perl-modules or better version to get it to install? How can I get it to run? Thanks for your help. Cheers, Harrie Harrie Overdijk, ECN, Postbox 1, 1755 ZG Petten (NH), The Netherlands. Internet: overdijk(a)ecn.nl Noisenet: +31 224 56 4597 Homenet : h.overdijk(a)hccnet.nl FAXnet : +31 224 56 8864 ICP/Postmaster/UseNet-News-manager/WWW-manager/Security-manager of ECN.

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Funniest domain so far?
by Chris Santerre 20 Sep '04

20 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Steven Champeon [mailto:schampeo@hesketh.com] >Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 3:03 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Funniest domain so far? > > >on Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 11:42:29AM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote: >> scabpickingisfun.com >> >> Can you top that? > >I love a challenge. :) > *snip* OMG! I bow down to that list! LOL. sharkswithfrickinlaserbeams.net That is priceless!!! :-) --Chris

1 0

Chinese translation help for anti-spam effort
by Jeff Chan 20 Sep '04

20 Sep '04

We've gotten a couple documents form the Internet Society of China www.isc.org.cn relating to email delivery and I'd like to request some help in translating them: http://www.surbl.org/isc1.doc http://www.surbl.org/isc1.doc The documents are some proposed email delivery standards called "Public Email Service Critereon" and a list of participating Chinese ISPs. (I changed the file names from the original non-English characters.) This contact came about as a result of my meeting the Secretariat of the ISC, Liu Liang, at the CEAS conference. We're also trying to get a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding between some Chinese ISPs and Internet companies like AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, eBay, Yahoo, dealing with the handling of spam and abuse. http://yahoo.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2004/nf20040914_6178_db065… That MoU was a result of a September ISC meeting 2004 China Internet Conference which included a 2004 International Anti-Spam Summit. While spam obviously remains a problem worldwide, I'm hopeful that some improved cooperation and communication with China to deal with spam and abuse may happen, as facilitated by ISC. In particular, we hope that any precedents created for cooperation between the MoU parties can be expanded to other anti-abuse organizations such as Spamhaus and SpamCop. Spamhaus already has some contacts with ISC, but missed this recent conference. If you can help translate these Chinese documents or know anyone who may be able to, please let me know. Thanks, Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

1 0

Additional PJ info
by Jeff Chan 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

Here's some additional info about the PJ data. Raymond is now processing about 300k spams per day and feeding them to Joe Wein for processing. This has increased the spam detection for PJ: SpamAssassin tag hits: (top 100) #1 103430 URIBL_WS_SURBL #2 101346 URIBL_PJ_SURBL #3 91324 BAYES_99 #4 90939 URIBL_SBL #5 85476 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET #6 85092 URIBL_OB_SURBL #7 81798 HTML_MESSAGE #8 67027 URIBL_SC_SURBL #9 56416 URIBL_AB_SURBL #10 48047 MIME_HTML_ONLY Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

5 7

Additional phish/fraud list
by Bill Landry 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

This is a list that MailPolice hosts and I have been running it for a few hours and it has already flagged some phish and fraud e-mails. Here is some info about the list: http://rhs.mailpolice.com/#rhsfraud This is my configuration for SA 2.64 with the SpamCopURI plug-in: uri MP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com','127.0.0.2') describe MP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud list tflags MP_URI_RBL net score MP_URI_RBL 2.0 And for SA 3.0 with the URIDNSBL plug-in: urirhsbl URIBL_MP fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com. A header URIBL_MP eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_MP') describe URIBL_MP URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud list tflags URIBL_MP net score URIBL_MP 2.0 Bill

5 28

WS FPs: e-gold.com, home.ro
by Jeff Chan 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

Speaking of which, why are e-gold.com and home.ro on WS? These look like obvious FPs to me. How did they get on? Jeff C.

2 4

RFC: pj.surbl.org - list from Joe Wein and Prolocation data
by Jeff Chan 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

As you know WS has data from several different sources: 1. Bill Stearns' sa-blacklist 2. Chris Santerre and the SARE Ninja's former BigEvil, MidEvil and other new ones. 3. Joe Wein's jwSpamSpy traps 4. Raymond's Prolocation traps and manual list. 5. MailSecurity lists and probably many others I'm not even aware of. So WS has become a collection of many different data sources. In some cases, such as for the jw data, my initial thought was to set it up as a separate list, but it was somewhat easier to let them all be added together. Raymond is currently feeding spamtrap data into Joe's system also. Raymond and I were looking at some of the data sources in WS and their spam detection and false positive rates, and we tried an experiment of checking his Prolocation spam data with Joe Wein's to see what the results would be like. We called that list "PJ" for "Prolocation and Joe" and found that the FP rate on one large corpus was significantly lower than WS, while the spam detection rate was approximately the same: OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME 2424443 2357143 67300 0.972 0.00 0.00 (all messages) 100.000 97.2241 2.7759 0.972 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) 7.595 7.8122 0.0045 0.999 1.00 0.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL 76.754 78.9448 0.0178 1.000 0.80 0.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL 77.230 79.4340 0.0208 1.000 0.60 1.00 URIBL_PJ_SURBL 0.985 1.0126 0.0045 0.996 0.50 0.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL 82.119 84.4600 0.1367 0.998 0.40 0.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL 0.021 0.0216 0.0045 0.829 0.00 0.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL (We removed FPs from both PJ and WS as a result of some of this testing, so both should score relatively better now in terms of FPs. The spam hit rates on SC and AB are low because this spam corpus includes many old spams with URIs which would have rolled off these lists. A test only on more recent days would show much higher spam hit rates for SC and AB.) In Raymond's own test of only spam hits, a later version of PJ got higher detection rates than WS: SpamAssassin tag hits: (edited to top 10) #1 108958 BAYES_99 #2 87001 URIBL_SBL #3 84709 URIBL_PJ_SURBL #4 81455 HTML_MESSAGE #5 78177 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET #6 75546 URIBL_OB_SURBL #7 74892 URIBL_WS_SURBL #8 64610 URIBL_SC_SURBL #9 58190 URIBL_AB_SURBL #10 54230 MIME_HTML_ONLY Since WS has relatively low scores in SA 3, presumably due to the relatively high FP rate: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 08:09:17PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote: >> score URIBL_AB_SURBL 0 2.007 0 0.417 >> score URIBL_OB_SURBL 0 1.996 0 3.213 >> score URIBL_PH_SURBL 0 0.839 0 2.000 >> score URIBL_SC_SURBL 0 3.897 0 4.263 >> score URIBL_WS_SURBL 0 0.539 0 1.462 >> >> So what do the columns above mean? (Theo replied:) > $ perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf > [...] > If four valid scores are listed, then the score that is used > depends on how SpamAssassin is being used. The first score is used > when both Bayes and network tests are disabled (score set 0). The > second score is used when Bayes is disabled, but network tests are > enabled (score set 1). The third score is used when Bayes is > enabled and network tests are disabled (score set 2). The fourth > score is used when Bayes is enabled and network tests are enabled > (score set 3). we thought it might be useful to make the PJ data available as a separate list, at least within multi.surbl.org, the combined SURBL. We'd like to get your comments on this. We're also wondering whether the PJ data should be taken out of WS, or left in, if we do make PJ a distinct list. There's not much downside in leaving PJ in WS, aside from a somewhat larger standalone WS list. On the other hand all of our lists are currently standalone and not deliberate subsets in terms of data sources. But I assume most people will use multi, for which the difference is small either way. By the way, please don't use PJ for production data yet, unless you are rsyncing the zone files, in which case you can mirror PJ locally now from the rsync servers for testing purposes if you like. PJ's only being served up on a couple public servers for our testing; we don't want to overload those servers. PJ is not in multi currently. Note that PJ is only a test list now. It may go away. Please comment, Jeff C.

3 4

OT: For Dallas...
by Alex Broens 18 Sep '04

18 Sep '04

Would appreciate if Dallas would allow me to mail him directly... Apologize for the noise. No other way to contact Dallas. Thanks Alex ----------------- Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: From: alexb(a)MUNGED.CH Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: To: dallase(a)nmgiMUNGED.com Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: Subject: DoubleCheck Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040918212951.0268d918(a)inet.alexb.ch> Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:38: MX-record resolution of [nmgi.com] in progress (DNS Server: 192.168.192.6)... Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: P=010 D=nmgi.com TTL=(60) MX=[mail2.nmgi.com] {209.218.125.110} Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: P=005 D=nmgi.com TTL=(60) MX=[mail1.nmgi.com] {67.67.32.200} Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Attempting MX: P=005 D=nmgi.com TTL=(60) MX=[mail1.nmgi.com] {67.67.32.200} Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Attempting SMTP connection to [67.67.32.200 : 25] Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Waiting for socket connection... Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Socket connection established (192.168.192.6 : 3407 -> 67.67.32.200 : 25) Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:39: Waiting for protocol initiation... Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 220 mailgw.nmgi.com ESMTP Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: --> EHLO alexb.ch Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250-DoubleCheck Supports Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250-PIPELINING Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250-8BITMIME Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250 AUTH LOGIN PLAIN Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: --> MAIL From:<alexb(a)MUNGED.CH> Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 250 ok Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: --> RCPT To:<dallase(a)nmgi.MUNGEDcom> Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: <-- 554 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1) Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: SMTP session terminated (Bytes in/out: 181/72) Sat 2004-09-18 21:30:40: ----------

1 0

Re: Additional URIBL phish/fraud list
by Jeff Chan 18 Sep '04

18 Sep '04

On Friday, September 17, 2004, 4:24:37 PM, Bill Landry wrote: > This is a list that MailPolice hosts and I have been running it for a few > hours and it has already flagged some phish and fraud e-mails. Here is some > info about the list: http://rhs.mailpolice.com/#rhsfraud > This is my configuration for SA 2.64 with the SpamCopURI plug-in: > uri MP_URI_RBL > eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com','127.0.0.2') > describe MP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud list > tflags MP_URI_RBL net > score MP_URI_RBL 2.0 > And for SA 3.0 with the URIDNSBL plug-in: > urirhsbl URIBL_MP fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com. A > header URIBL_MP eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_MP') > describe URIBL_MP URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud list > tflags URIBL_MP net > score URIBL_MP 2.0 > Bill Thanks for finding that additional phishing data Bill! It may be worth noting that we're working on including these into PH inside multi.surbl.org, and that we have 15 times more name servers than mailpolice.com does. ;-) Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
23
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss September 2004