- Discuss - Mailman 3

{Spam?} Why is OrgDNS listed in SURBL ?
by Ralph Seichter 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

I wonder why www.orgdns.org ist listed in ab.surbl.org, sc.surbl.org and ws.surbl.org. OrgDNS offers dynamic name services and I just found an account activation notification flagged as spam by SpamAssassin, based on said SURBL listings. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Yours sincerely Dipl. Inform. Ralph Seichter HORUS-IT Ahornweg 10 D-57635 Oberirsen Tel +49 2686 987880 Fax +49 2686 987889 http://horus-it.de/

4 7

Top Rule Hits on Pre2 in the last 16 hours (fwd)
by William Stearns 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:42:58 -0500 From: Dallas L. Engelken <dallase(a)nmgi.com> To: spamassassin-users(a)incubator.apache.org Subject: Top Rule Hits on Pre2 in the last 16 hours Just FYI, my pre2 results after upgrading yesterday. 5 of the 6 top hitters are URIBL! DCC, Razor and Pyzor still hanging in there at ~1%... And a big pat on the back to Bob (SARE ninja) for the LONGWORDS. Email: 55473 Autolearn: 9744 AvgScore: 3.82 AvgScanTime: 1.85 sec Spam: 16157 Autolearn: 8723 AvgScore: 12.77 AvgScanTime: 3.66 sec Ham: 39316 Autolearn: 1021 AvgScore: 0.14 AvgScanTime: 1.11 sec TOP SPAM RULES FIRED ------------------------------------------------------------ RANK RULE NAME COUNT PERCENT ------------------------------------------------------------ -> 1 URIBL_WS_SURBL 13057 5.36% -> 2 URIBL_SBL 12907 5.30% 3 HTML_MESSAGE 11136 4.57% -> 4 URIBL_SC_SURBL 11060 4.54% -> 5 URIBL_OB_SURBL 10728 4.40% -> 6 URIBL_AB_SURBL 7981 3.28% 7 LONGWORDS 7947 3.26% 8 MPART_ALT_DIFF 6186 2.54% 9 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET 5507 2.26% 10 FORGED_RCVD_HELO 5196 2.13% 11 MIME_MISSING_BOUNDARY 4987 2.05% 12 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY 4565 1.87% 13 INFO_TLD 4192 1.72% 14 NO_REAL_NAME 4102 1.68% 15 BIZ_TLD 3984 1.64% 16 MIME_HTML_ONLY 3717 1.53% 17 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL 3660 1.50% 18 HTML_20_30 3099 1.27% 19 DCC_CHECK 3018 1.24% 20 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 2972 1.22% 21 RAZOR2_CHECK 2965 1.22% 22 AWL 2852 1.17% 23 HTML_FONT_BIG 2740 1.12% 24 DIGEST_MULTIPLE 2292 0.94% 25 PYZOR_CHECK 2262 0.93% 26 CLICK_BELOW 1919 0.79% 27 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12 1918 0.79% 28 HTML_30_40 1869 0.77% 29 LINES_OF_YELLING 1737 0.71% 30 HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE 1591 0.65% 31 MIME_BOUND_DD_DIGITS 1583 0.65% 32 HTML_80_90 1566 0.64% 33 HTML_FONT_TINY 1549 0.64% 34 HTML_FONT_SIZE_TINY 1525 0.63% 35 HTML_70_80 1498 0.61% 36 MONEY_BACK 1301 0.53% 37 HTML_FONT_SIZE_LARGE 1255 0.52% 38 DRUGS_ERECTILE 1247 0.51% 39 SATIS_GUAR 1191 0.49% 40 MSGID_DOLLARS 1189 0.49% ------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

8m.com FP? in ds and ws.
by Patrik Nilsson 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

8m.com seem to be used for sub-domain delegation. While some of those subdomains might be used in spam, not all are, so maybe 8m.com should be white-listed and just the subdomains be listed? It's currently listed in ds and ws. Patrik

4 5

domain overhand1383biz-MUNGED.us
by Mariano Absatz 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Hi, I just got the message below containing a URL referring a subdomain of overhand1383biz-MUNGED.us. As it didn't hit any SURBL list, I promptly checked it in http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi in order to submit it for ws.surbl.org... Much to my surprise, it said it is already listed in ws.surbl.org as well as in ob.surbl.org... Checking my dns logs (it actually was today about 1:15 AM (UTC-03:00)) it doesn't show a problem with DNS, but actual NXDOMAIN answers: 07-08 01:14:04 query 121975 \ 127.0.0.1:4497:52051 a overhand1383biz-MUNGED.us.ob.surbl.org. 07-08 01:14:04 tx 0 a overhand1383biz-MUNGED.us.ob.surbl.org. \ ob.surbl.org. \ 209.234.97.11 62.58.50.220 66.251.133.4 66.59.111.182 \ 152.20.240.35 64.21.208.212 193.95.141.43 216.58.97.21 \ 128.255.17.20 66.170.2.50 213.132.0.70 130.161.128.84 \ 128.255.17.19 69.10.169.115 194.109.9.8 66.170.2.60 07-08 01:14:04 nxdomain 209.234.97.11 3600 \ overhand1383biz-MUNGED.us.ob.surbl.org. 07-08 01:14:05 query 121978 \ 127.0.0.1:4497:52054 a overhand1383biz-MUNGED.us.ws.surbl.org. 07-08 01:14:05 tx 0 a overhand1383biz-MUNGED.us.ws.surbl.org. \ ws.surbl.org. \ 213.132.0.70 128.255.17.19 66.170.2.50 193.95.141.43 \ 209.204.159.15 64.21.208.212 208.201.249.238 128.255.17.20 \ 130.161.128.84 139.130.4.5 62.58.50.220 66.59.111.182 \ 209.234.97.11 66.170.2.60 66.251.133.4 194.109.9.8 07-08 01:14:05 nxdomain 213.132.0.70 3600 \ overhand1383biz-MUNGED.us.ws.surbl.org. maybe they were added between 1:00 AM and 9:00 AM? It'd be nice to have a kind of timestamp in entries (at least when checking them via web). Thanx for a great job!! ############ ORIGINAL SPAM (DOMAIN MUNGED) WITH HEADERS ######## Received: from [218.79.131.116] ([218.79.131.116]:23567 "HELO fishingfan.com" whoson: "-unregistered-") by dedos.pert.com.ar with SMTP id <S185399AbUGHEOG>; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 01:14:06 -0300 Message-ID: <41692037.13C92E2(a)fishingfan.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 13:41:31 +1000 Reply-To: "jake edgar" <herminiacottmtin(a)fishingfan.com> From: "jake edgar" <herminiacottmtin(a)fishingfan.com> User-Agent: Foxmail 4.2 [cn] X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "morgan hubert" <baby(a)baby.com.ar> Subject: Aydhkli Prescriptions 0vernighted To Your Doorstep..Val1um Etc.. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner: Se encontro limpio X-MailScanner-SpamAssassin: ham, SpamAssassin-2.63 (puntaje=4.404, requerido 5, DRUGS_ANXIETY 0.01, DRUGS_ANXIETY_OBFU 1.00, J_CHICKENPOX_45 0.60, RATWR10_MESSID 0.11, RCVD_IN_RFCI 0.10, SARE_RECV_IP_218079 1.67, SARE_USERAG_SPAM0 0.92) Return-Path: <herminiacottmtin(a)fishingfan.com> maalderij onderzoeksinspanningen koortjes Our online shop is your source for locating many presscription drugs without a prior presscription in comp1iance with FDA regulations. B`uy V@L|UM, X(a)NA.X O`n1ine For Less Safe & Secure Ordering! W C http://i.rcg.overhand1383biz-MUNGED.us/f74/ Illness, injury, love, lost moments of true greatness, and sheer stupidity all occur to test the limits of your soul. Without these small tests, whatever they may be, life would be like a smoothly paved straight flat road to nowhere. It would be safe and comfortable, but dull and utterly pointless. Having a secret is so fantastically sustaining and comforting, especially when teenage turbulence squalls up. My parents bought the records, but I was totally convinced that only I had the monopoly of true understanding. When I heard her belt through gotta move, I seriously thought this gal must be psychic. forada2arnillo08boyuno,depuratorio despreciador. -- Mariano Absatz El Baby ---------------------------------------------------------- Conjecture: All odd numbers are prime. Mathematician's Proof: 3 is prime. 5 is prime. 7 is prime. By induction, all odd numbers are prime. Physicist's Proof: 3 is prime. 5 is prime. 7 is prime. 9 is experimental error. 11 is prime. 13 is prime ... Engineer's Proof: 3 is prime. 5 is prime. 7 is prime. 9 is prime. 11 is prime. 13 is prime ... Computer Scientists's Proof: 3 is prime. 3 is prime. 3 is prime. 3 is prime...

3 3

redirect service???
by Chris Santerre 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

group.to points to opt.to which I *think* is a redir. ?????? 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

{Spam?} Perfect example of URL Poison
by Chris Santerre 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

I just wanted to share this example submitted today. (Thanks Dave!) Can you tell which domains to report? :) This is why scraping urls with scripts is no good. ********************************************** <a href="http://opoloves.com/tp/default.asp?id=rxsavings"> <img src="http://netuetion.com/faxd.gif" border=0> </a> Up to 8<A href="http://www.impractical.org"></A>0<A href="http://www.hettie.org"></A>% Sa<A href="http ://www.sheath.org"></A>vin<A href="http://www.inhibitor.org"></A>gs on X<A href="http://www.brown.org" ></A>an<A href="http://www.shinto.org"></A>ax, Va<A href="http://www.triptych.org"></A>li<A href="http ://www.irreproducible.org"></A>um, P<A href="http://www.anonymity.org"></A>hen<A href="http://www.sire n.org"></A>term<A href="http://www.warble.org"></A>ine, V<A href="http://www.bind.org"></A>ia<A href=" http://www.volterra.org"></A>gr<A href="http://www.baccarat.org"></A>a <a href="http://opoloves.com/tp/default.asp?id=rxsavings"> HERE</a> For em<A href="http://www.della.org"></A>ail re<A href="http://www.aviate.org"></A>mov<A href="http://www.accede.org"></A>a<A href="http://www.servitor.org"></A>l, g<A href="http://www.beet.org"></A>o <A href="http://opoloves.com/er/e.asp">here.</A> ********************************************** Wasn't that fun! :) Took a human eye about 20 seconds to find the 2 that mattered. 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

6 5

ws.surbl.org more FP's
by David Hooton 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

More to acompany the sudden upsurge of FP's in the WS list. meredith.com (magazine publisher - owner of americanbaby.com newsletter) websponsors.com be3a.com This week has been a particularly bad week for FP's :( -- Regards, David Hooton

4 6

[SURBL-Discuss] Problems with SpamCopURI-0.18 on YellowDog linux 3.0.1
by Michael H. Martel 15 Jul '04

15 Jul '04

Hello! I'm trying to install SpamCopURI veriosn 0.18 on my YellowDog Linux server. When I install a .cf file that calls it, I get the following messages from spamassassin --lint : [root@merlin spamassassin]# spamassassin --lint Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/surbl.cf, rule WS_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/bigevil.cf, rule BigEvilList_1614, line 11071, near "; }" ) I've installed the same version of SpamCopURI on a RedHat 7.3 server without any problems. I took the .cf file from that machine and it still fails. The .cf file looks like this : uri WS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('ws.surbl.org','127.0.0.2') describe WS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in sa-blacklist tflags WS_URI_RBL net score WS_URI_RBL 3.0 Any thoughts ? I tried removing all my other .cf files and I still get ... [root@merlin Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.18]# spamassassin --lint Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/surbl.cf, rule WS_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/surbl.cf, rule WS_URI_RBL, line 23, near "; }" ) Thanks! Michael -- --------------------------------o--------------------------------- Michael H. Martel | Vermont State Colleges martelm(a)quark.vsc.edu | Systems Administrator http://probe.vsc.edu/~michael | PH:802-241-2544 FX:802-241-3363

1 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] FP for images.meredith.com in ws.surbl.org ?
by Chris Santerre 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: David B Funk [mailto:dbfunk@engineering.uiowa.edu] >Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 6:05 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] FP for images.meredith.com in ws.surbl.org ? > > >My boss subscribes to the "WOOD ONLINE" woodworking newsletter ><newsletter(a)email.woodmall.com>, which is published by >Meredith Corporation. > >It contains references to images from http://images.meredith.com >which trigger hits from ws.surbl.org and BigEvil.cf >(it survived the single hit from BigEvil but when I deployed >SURBL it got taken down, then the boss was asking why his >newsletter was landing in his spam-basket ;). > >Now that I know about it, I've whitelisted the newsletter but not >sure what else might be hit. >Is images.meredith.com truely evil or a FP? >(I can supply a copy of the newsletter if anybody wants to see it). > >Dave This is an interesting one. Of the only 2 recent ones I see, one was a poison attempt: http://tinyurl.com/2mzf6 And the other looked like legit spam: http://tinyurl.com/2an9j But who knows? I definetly don't see any pattern like I do with real spam. I'm thinking they may be okay to remove. Anyone else? --Chris

2 1

FP for images.meredith.com in ws.surbl.org ?
by David B Funk 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

My boss subscribes to the "WOOD ONLINE" woodworking newsletter <newsletter(a)email.woodmall.com>, which is published by Meredith Corporation. It contains references to images from http://images.meredith.com which trigger hits from ws.surbl.org and BigEvil.cf (it survived the single hit from BigEvil but when I deployed SURBL it got taken down, then the boss was asking why his newsletter was landing in his spam-basket ;). Now that I know about it, I've whitelisted the newsletter but not sure what else might be hit. Is images.meredith.com truely evil or a FP? (I can supply a copy of the newsletter if anybody wants to see it). Dave -- Dave Funk University of Iowa <dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering 319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527 #include <std_disclaimer.h> Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{

2 1

FP - netwinsite.com
by Steven Champeon 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

I know that netwinsite.com has been forged into a slew of "Mobster I. Syphilitic" spams, as a bogus Received: header, but I would not block mail simply based on the domain. Chris Pugmire <chrisphome(a)netwin.co.nz> is the contact I worked with over at Surgweb to clear up the forged Received: headers issue. He was very antispam when I talked to him, perhaps he would be interested to know if he's got some spamming customer(s). -- hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com Buy "Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation, 2/e" today! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159059231X/heskecominc-20/ref=nosim/

2 1

fp: wallstreetreporter.com
by Steven Champeon 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

Please whitelist/exclude 'wallstreetreporter.com'. It's showing up in some legit mail here. -- hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com Buy "Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation, 2/e" today! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159059231X/heskecominc-20/ref=nosim/

2 1

possible false positive on DS
by Jose-Marcio.Martins＠ensmp.fr 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

Hello, myfamily.com is present at ds list. It seems to me that this is a false positive. Jose-Marcio -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ Tel. :(33) 01.40.51.93.41 Ecole des Mines de Paris http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr 60, bd Saint Michel http://www.ensmp.fr/~martins 75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06 mailto:Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] 8m.com FP? in ds and ws.
by Chris Santerre 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

Could be a wakeup call for them. Maybe they should stop hosting spammers? Yeah yeah I know. I'm removing them now :) --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrik Nilsson [mailto:patrik@patrik.com] >Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:47 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] 8m.com FP? in ds and ws. > > >8m.com seem to be used for sub-domain delegation. > >While some of those subdomains might be used in spam, not all >are, so maybe >8m.com should be white-listed and just the subdomains be listed? > >It's currently listed in ds and ws. > >Patrik > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] ws.surbl.org more FP's
by Chris Santerre 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] >Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:26 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] ws.surbl.org more FP's > > >Hi! > >> meredith.com (magazine publisher - owner of americanbaby.com >newsletter) >> websponsors.com >> be3a.com >> >> This week has been a particularly bad week for FP's :( > >I dont know about the other 2 but websponsors.com is not a FP. >They are a >advertising network and have a lot of people spamming to drive >traffic to >the sites they advertise. Why would you wanna whitelist that one ? Any >specific reasons ? > >Perhaps look here: http://websponsors.com/affiliates.htm > >We have seen a LOT of mail with that one and refers to it. > >Its a matter of vieuw i also think, what you feel is a FP, but in this >case i dont agree with you. > Hey for once these didn't come from me or my sources :) However: > websponsors.com > be3a.com Both show up in 6dos data files. Which at least raises an eyebrow. --Chris

1 0

Re: SURBL scoring (fwd)
by Raymond Dijkxhoorn 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

Hi! Some talks about SURBL on the MailScanner list. This might be interesting for some of you: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:07:14 -0400 From: John Lundin <lundin(a)CAVTEL.NET> Reply-To: MailScanner mailing list <MAILSCANNER(a)jiscmail.ac.uk> To: MAILSCANNER(a)jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Re: SURBL scoring On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: >> If the tests aren't very independent, should I reduce the scores >> when using more than one test? We delete mail that scores over 12, >> with these cumulative scores a false positive could result in lost >> mail. Should I worry about that? > > They are completely independant. See it as 3 regular RBL checks, if > you have a open proxy its also listed in all 3 (most likely). If its > listed in 3, and it scores 12 you are about as positive as it can be > that its spam... (cough) Well, since no one else spoke up... IMO, you should worry. And the problem is about to get worse; there's a new list in beta. A few days after adding WS to spamcop_uri, I had a friend's letter wind up in my spam folder. He was building a new computer and had sent me a parts list for comment. One of his possible suppliers turned out to be in SC and WC. (You can guess what one of my comments was.) o Do you really want to lose every message containing the hot URI? And any followup that quotes it? o They wouldn't be completely independent. Similar sets of spammers, same URI being matched against in the message. Personally, I do worry about forcing high-scoring spam status based on any single content feature. I scored the RBI_URL checks fairly low (3.0), and added a few meta-rules to soften multiple impact. This was guess by eyeball. I haven't gotten around to playing with the math, but have started to keep statistics to base new scores on. FWIW, I maintain MS on one old spam-ridden site. About 95% of its inbound mail currently scores as spam. 83% of that spam hits at least one URI_RBL rule. 31% of spam (37% of spam hits with URI_RBL's) hit all four of AB, OB, SC and WS, and 53% (63%) hit three or more! Of the "non-spam", 1.4% still has at least one URI_RBL hit. What I added to spamcop_uri.cf (first pass): meta OB_SC_URI_RBL (SPAMCOP_URI_RBL && OB_URI_RBL) describe OB_SC_URI_RBL Compensate if both spamcop and OB trigger score OB_SC_URI_RBL -1.5 meta AB_SC_URI_RBL (SPAMCOP_URI_RBL && AB_URI_RBL) describe AB_SC_URI_RBL Compensate if both AB and SC trigger score AB_SC_URI_RBL -1.5 meta OB_WS_URI_RBL (OB_URI_RBL && WS_URI_RBL) describe OB_WS_URI_RBL Compensate if both WS and OB trigger score OB_WS_URI_RBL -1.0 I'd be interested to know what other people do to fix this. -- lundin(a)cavtel.net "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry' ..." -------------------------- MailScanner list ---------------------- To leave, send leave mailscanner to jiscmail(a)jiscmail.ac.uk Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/ and the archives at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] fp mailscanner dot info
by Chris Santerre 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] >Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:51 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] fp mailscanner dot info > > >Hi! > >> (S)He'd better check that out thoroughly before... MailScanner dot >> info is the official home of MailScanner, which is a (very good) >> antispam/antivirus server tool... it does integrate SURBL via SA and >> its great! >> >> The possible problems your submitter might have had would be: >> >> 1) a foolish sysadmin enabling spam bounces to faked 'mail from:' >> addresses which could include a default signature including >> www.mailscanner-MUNGED.info (and possibly www.transtec.co.uk). > >If he/she would have looked on the page, eg, handchecked the >submission >then this would have never happened. Very very silly. > I'll take the heat on this one. I have been trusting the submissions of this source. As they are well known and not a noob on this matter. But from now on I will handcheck everyone of the submissions from this source. --Chris

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] fp mailscanner dot info
by Chris Santerre 14 Jul '04

14 Jul '04

Fixed just now. I've informed the person who submitted it. I couldn't find anything bad on them. But sometimes this submitter does. I've whitelisted them. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Lindsay Snider [mailto:lindsay@pa.net] >Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:58 AM >To: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] fp mailscanner dot info > > >I noticed mailscanner dot info is in ws.surbl.org and I believe this to >be incorrect. Do we have an alternate more automated way of dealing w/ >false positives? > >Best Regards, >Lindsay >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

3 2

beam.to redirect service, listed in ws.
by Patrik Nilsson 13 Jul '04

13 Jul '04

Should beam.to be whitelisted? It's a redirect service. Currently listed in ws. Patrik

2 1

WHy did I ask about brightmail?
by Chris Santerre 13 Jul '04

13 Jul '04

" Symantec's patent-pending URL Filters technology leverages key infrastructure elements unique to Symantec. Using its real-time spam data, the BLOC builds a list of spammer's Web sites. At the customer site, URL Filters compare embedded links in messages to the list of spam URLs maintained by the BLOC. The list itself is created by using a combination of offline and real-time processes, incorporating URLs fromthe following sources: Probe Network data. The majority of the spam URLs are extracted from incoming spam and historical data from the Probe Network. Thus, if there are URLs present in the message, and the BLOC has ruled against the message, the URL is added to the list. Trusted third party lists. URL lists maintained by third party vendors and partners are verified, cross-checked, and incorporated into Symantec's spam URL list. " Patent Pending? Third Party? Hmmm........ I have a problem with people making money off open source. I have a REAL problem when people don't even mention the source. I'm not saying they do use surbl.org, but if they did, they should say it. They also say that URL filtering is exclusive to brightmail. Nice! 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

2 1

rsync and brightmail
by Chris Santerre 13 Jul '04

13 Jul '04

Just curious is brightmail or ironport IPs are rsyncing surbl data? Anyone know? 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

1 0

fp mailscanner dot info
by Lindsay Snider 13 Jul '04

13 Jul '04

I noticed mailscanner dot info is in ws.surbl.org and I believe this to be incorrect. Do we have an alternate more automated way of dealing w/ false positives? Best Regards, Lindsay

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss]
by Mailing List 13 Jul '04

13 Jul '04

Hi Raymond, 3 different systems (2 RH9 and 1 Fedora Core 1) Perl 5.8.0 on the RH9 boxes Perl 5.8.3 on the FC1 box URI is 1.31 SpamCopURI is 0.18 I initially followed instructions at http://www.fsl.com/support/index.html, using the latest URI. I had to install LWP::UserAgent, on my RH9 boxes it went well, but on my FC1 box it returns: Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- live/apache-listing.t 8 1 12.50% 5 Failed 1/41 test scripts, 97.56% okay. 1/761 subtests failed, 99.87% okay. make: *** [test] Error 255 /usr/bin/make test -- NOT OK Running make install make test had returned bad status, won't install without force Thanks Guy -----Original Message----- What version perl are you using? What OS? Whats the version of URI?

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss]
by Mailing List 13 Jul '04

13 Jul '04

>From the install thru CPAN t/blacklist........ok t/dnsrbl...........ok t/extract_urls.....ok t/mailto...........ok t/open_redirect....NOK 1# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t at line 37) t/open_redirect....NOK 2# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t at line 44) # Failed test (t/open_redirect.t at line 52) t/open_redirect....ok 5/5# Looks like you failed 3 tests of 5. t/open_redirect....dubious Test returned status 3 (wstat 768, 0x300) DIED. FAILED tests 1-3 Failed 3/5 tests, 40.00% okay t/spamcopuri.......ok t/whitelist........ok Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- t/open_redirect.t 3 768 5 3 60.00% 1-3 Failed 1/7 test scripts, 85.71% okay. 3/57 subtests failed, 94.74% okay. make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 29 /usr/bin/make test -- NOT OK Running make install make test had returned bad status, won't install without force -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Raymond Dijkxhoorn Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 08:04 To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Hi! > t/open_redirect....NOK 2# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t at line 44) > t/open_redirect....NOK 3# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t at line 52) > t/open_redirect....ok 5/5# Looks like you failed 3 tests of 5. > t/open_redirect....dubious > Test returned status 3 (wstat 768, 0x300) > DIED. FAILED tests 1-3 > Failed 3/5 tests, 40.00% okay > t/spamcopuri.......ok > t/whitelist........ok > Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------- > t/open_redirect.t 3 768 5 3 60.00% 1-3 > Failed 1/7 test scripts, 85.71% okay. 3/57 subtests failed, 94.74% okay. > make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 29 Did you try to install via CPAN ? So it can try to get the dependencies ? perl -MCPAN -e shell install Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI Bye, Raymond. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

2 1

by Mailing List 13 Jul '04

13 Jul '04

Got this output from the make test t/blacklist........ok t/dnsrbl...........ok t/extract_urls.....ok t/mailto...........ok t/open_redirect....NOK 1# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t at line 37) t/open_redirect....NOK 2# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t at line 44) t/open_redirect....NOK 3# Failed test (t/open_redirect.t at line 52) t/open_redirect....ok 5/5# Looks like you failed 3 tests of 5. t/open_redirect....dubious Test returned status 3 (wstat 768, 0x300) DIED. FAILED tests 1-3 Failed 3/5 tests, 40.00% okay t/spamcopuri.......ok t/whitelist........ok Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- t/open_redirect.t 3 768 5 3 60.00% 1-3 Failed 1/7 test scripts, 85.71% okay. 3/57 subtests failed, 94.74% okay. make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 29 Any pointers ? Kindest Regards

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss