Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1862 discussions

Errors with spamassassin --lint
by Daniel J McDonald 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

> On Thursday, August 5, 2004, 4:39:58 AM, Jeff Chan wrote: > > On Thursday, August 5, 2004, 4:12:23 AM, Mailing List wrote:>> > Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping:>> > open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri tinyurl.com > *.tinyurl.com>> Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, > skipping:>> open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri xurl.us > Er, the redirect tests failing may be ok, but I'm not so sure > about the eval ones. Can anyone else help? I had to remove my old /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf in order to upgrade to SA 2.64, then install the new spamcop_uri 0.21 and copy the new rules/spamcop_uri.cf from the distribution to /etc/mail/spamassassin/ in order for --lint to be happy. -- Daniel J McDonald <dan.mcdonald(a)austinenergy.com> Austin Energy

1 0

[SURBL-Discuss] jwSpamSpy domains in ws.surbl.org reduced to only the best ones
by Jeff Chan 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

Joe Wein has created a new version of the data which Raymond is putting into ws.surbl.org. The new version is 60% smaller and contains only domains that were added under an extensive and strict set of criteria which Joe devised. As a result, the jw additions to ws are 60% smaller and probably a lot better in terms of false positives. The earlier cut of the data had included some domains which Joe had seeded from other RBLs and which therefore did not have the extensive checking which Joe's current process applies to new entries. Joe used the seeding from other RBLs to initially populate his data, but the new data gathered purely with his own processing should be much better. Bottom line is that the FP rate of WS should drop. Does anyone have any current FP rates to share? Jeff C.

5 6

Fwd: Re: SpamAssassin 2.64 is released!
by Jeff Chan 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

From: Jeff Chan To: SpamAssassin Users Date: Thursday, August 5, 2004, 4:04:25 AM Subject: SpamAssassin 2.64 is released! On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 10:46:34 PM, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > "jdow" <jdow(a)earthlink.net> writes: >> Did this port the SURBL into the release or not? > Adding SURBL to 2.64 wasn't really an option we could consider. A few > reasons off of the top of my head: > - the 2.6x tree is our stable tree and that would be a major change > - the main purpose of 2.64 is fixing a specific security issue, adding > SURBL would have delayed the release and added unnecessary risk [...] It's probably worth noting the Eric happened to have revised SpamCopURI recently also, to version 0.21. Perhaps more importantly several people have tried SpamCopURI 0.21 with SpamAssassin 2.64 and they seem to work just fine together. > OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME > 151033 122586 28447 0.812 0.00 0.00 (all messages) > 100.000 81.1650 18.8350 0.812 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) > 23.882 29.4218 0.0105 1.000 0.98 0.00 RCVD_IN_XBL > 17.441 21.4837 0.0176 0.999 0.97 0.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL > 53.206 65.5156 0.1582 0.998 0.90 0.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL > 9.897 12.1449 0.2074 0.983 0.82 0.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL > 58.068 71.4494 0.4043 0.994 0.79 0.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL > 0.017 0.0204 0.0000 1.000 0.48 0.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL Thanks for the additional stats. I'll assume the spam detection rates for AB and SC are probably low because Daniel's spam corpus covers a much longer historical time period than would typically be encountered with messages in real time. Other rule stats seems to suggest SC, WS, and OB have fairly similar spam detection rates, such as these from Raymond Dijkxhoorn: SpamAssassin tag hits: (top 100) #1 64675 BAYES_99 #2 54198 HTML_MESSAGE #3 44694 RCVD_IN_SBL+XBL #4 43427 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET #5 37191 RCVD_IN_SORBS #6 35888 WS_URI_RBL #7 33729 SPAMCOP_URI_RBL #8 33089 MIME_HTML_ONLY #9 32485 OUTBLAZE_URI_RBL #10 26678 RCVD_IN_DSBL #11 19665 RCVD_IN_AHBL #12 19662 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK #13 19146 CLICK_BELOW #14 18374 ABUSEBUTLER_URI_RBL Cheers, Jeff C.

1 0

Whitelist Request
by Bitz 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

We have customers subscribed to their mailing list :) Please whitelist military.com (listed at ws.surbl.org)

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Ah...all coming back to me now. Thanks for the replies. I shall remove this note from my system now :) --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrik Nilsson [mailto:patrik@patrik.com] >Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:06 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org > > >At 08:13 2004-08-04 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote: >>On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 7:53:02 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> > What was the final say on this? >> >>The particular data source we looked at seemed to have too >>many false positives. Maybe there are some data sources >>we could check. >> >>Also there's some dilution of focus and potential for >>misapplication since such a list probably would have >>non-spammers on it. > >I think that it would be a substantial dilution of focus that >could cause >serious damage to surbl.org's reputation. > >If some people find it useful to have surbl-type lists of >domains that are >not necessarily spam but that they find objectionable for some >reason, be >it sex sites, gaming sites, sites selling alcohol or promoting >drugs or >whatever, I think it would be better if they where done >totally separate >from surbl.org. > >Patrik > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

What was the final say on this? Are we waiting until more people use multi? --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Bret Miller [mailto:bret.miller@wcg.org] >Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:06 PM >To: rob(a)pvsys.com; SURBL Discussion list >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org > > >> I still vote YES on adding the sex sites (in a separate DNS feed). >> >> (1) It seems like all the technology and know-how is in place >> to do this... maybe with a little tweaking, but nothing >> different than what has already been done elsewhere. > >Which is why my vote is still "yes" too. > >> >> (2) It would be a separate list and its use would be >> completely voluntary. Therefore, this seems to me to be MORE >> a question of "are there sufficient YET votes to make it >> worthwhile"... and NOT so much a question of comparing the >> "yes" vs. "no" votes because the "no" votes can simply choose >> to not participate... which is easy.... simply don't do >> anything different from what you are already doing. >> >> (3) Its purpose and scope could easily be explained on the >> SURBL.org site in its own page. It could even be omitted from >> being mentioned on any other pages to avoid confusion. > >However, as was explained in a different thread, a lot of adult sites >are subdomains and the SURBL mode of operation is to strip subdomains >down to their base domain, which would make it rather useless against >some sites. So, it would also have to be explained that the sex SURBL >was not a complete solution to eliminating sex sites, but rather a >better-than-nothing filter to remove some sex sites. > >>From our point of view, blocking some sex sites is better >than blocking >none, even if they are truly opt-in, confirmed signups. > >On the other side of things, SURBL has significantly reduce the amount >of image-only sex spam that gets through in addition to making overall >spam scoring more accuate for us. So it's not an over-the-top >need which >drives the interest, but just rather the convenience of using it to >further reduce the possibility of explicitly sexual photographs and >sites being sent through our e-mail system. > >Bret > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

4 3

[FP] OK, whos the wise guy :)
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Who put FredericksMUNGED.com into WS? Girls in NY office complained this morning they weren't getting their newsletters :) Silly boys! DO you really want to block this? I suggest a whitelist for this and victoriasecret.com Chris Santerre System Admin and SARE Ninja http://www.rulesemporium.com http://www.surbl.org 'It is not the strongest of the species that survives, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.' Charles Darwin

3 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] [FP] OK, whos the wise guy :)
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:20 AM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] [FP] OK, whos the wise guy :) > > >On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 7:58:34 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> Who put FredericksMUNGED.com into WS? > >> Girls in NY office complained this morning they weren't getting their >> newsletters :) > >> Silly boys! DO you really want to block this? I suggest a >whitelist for this >> and victoriasecret.com > >OK I've whitelisted them. > >Jeff C. And there was much rejoicing from boyfriends and husbands across the internet :) Jeff, do you smile or cringe when you see an email from me in your inbox? :P --Chris

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Kudos again
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 6:35 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Kudos again > > >On Tuesday, August 3, 2004, 9:41:41 AM, Bret Miller wrote: >> Just installed SpamCopURI 0.20 and reconfigured to use the >multi list. >> This works great! Less overhead, more lists. Wonderful! > >Thanks should go to Eric for writing the code, Understatement. Eric should be knighted :) Or at least given a cookie. --Chris

1 0

Potential FP in OB - conventionbloggers.com
by Patrik Nilsson 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

conventionbloggers.com is listed in OB. I can't see why it should be SURBL listed... unless we're using political criteria... Patrik

2 1

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