- Discuss - Mailman 3

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] No install Problems with 0.10
by Paul Barbeau 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

I guess i spoke to soon.. The "make test" works and it looks like the "make install" works however when i send an email through with "http://test.surbl.org/" in it nothing gets tagged. Is that the correct URL to use to confirm it is working? Any ideas? Paul

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] 0.10 install difficulties
by Steve Wakelin 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Raymond, It was Net::DNS that was not uo to the latest revision. Installed this from CPAN and all is now OK. Many thanks Regards /Steve -----Original Message----- From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] Sent: 14 April 2004 02:12 To: Steve Wakelin Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] 0.10 install difficulties Hi! > Logged out > # make clean > # perl Makefile.PL > # make > # make test > > Same error > Has anyone got it to work on FC1? I can try at work tomorrow to compile in on FC1, i currently are running the URI checks on 2 RH9 boxes. Bye, Raymond.

2 1

[SURBL-Discuss] Fix for the "syntax error at /etc/pamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf" errors
by Daniel Patterson 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Hello all, This is a quick note to those who are getting the following errors under 2.63: Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping: ^I(syntax error at /etc/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /usr/share/spamassassin/20_uri_tests.cf, rule URI_OFFERS, line 175, near "; }" ) The cause of this error is the perl module loader path being set such that your new, shiny SpamCopURI classes are not replacing their original counterparts in the original SA distribution. I'm running Debian, and I noticed, in /usr/bin/spamassassin and /usr/sbin/spamd the following line: use lib '/usr/share/perl5'; The actual content of this line will vary depending on your system, but if you're experiencing the above error, this is the source of your troubles. To fix it, I add the following immedietly after the previous "use lib" line: use lib '/usr/share/perl5'; use lib '/usr/local/share/perl/5.8.3'; This prepends /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.3 to the module search path, which will make the newly installed Spamassassin modules be loaded in preference to those found elsewhere on your system. You could possibly also remove the "use lib" line altogether, but I haven't tried that. daniel

1 0

No install Problems with 0.10
by Paul Barbeau 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

I just ran "make test" for the first time with no errors (ya) so all the error with the 0.099 install have been fixxed. I am going to install it on a "clean" machine just to confirm i have no problems again. Paul

1 0

0.10 install difficulties
by Steve Wakelin 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Hello, Some background [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# uname -a Linux qmail.wcslnet.net 2.4.22-1.2174.nptl #1 Wed Feb 18 16:38:32 EST 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# perl -v This is perl, v5.8.3 built for i386-linux-thread-multi [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# rpm -qa | grep perl perl-DateManip-5.40-30 perl-URI-1.21-7 perl-XML-Dumper-0.4-25 perl-5.8.3-16 perl-DBI-1.37-1 perl-Filter-1.29-8 perl-HTML-Tagset-3.03-28 perl-Parse-Yapp-1.05-30 perl-libwww-perl-5.65-6 perl-libxml-perl-0.07-28 perl-XML-Encoding-1.01-23 mod_perl-1.99_12-2 perl-HTML-Parser-3.26-18 perl-XML-Parser-2.31-16 perl-libxml-enno-1.02-29 perl-DBD-MySQL-2.9002-1 [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# All other prerequisites installed. [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/bad..............ok t/blacklist........ok t/cache............ok t/dnsrbl...........NOK 1# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 16) t/dnsrbl...........NOK 2# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 18) t/dnsrbl...........NOK 5# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25) t/dnsrbl...........ok 6/6# Looks like you failed 3 tests of 6. t/dnsrbl...........dubious Test returned status 3 (wstat 768, 0x300) Scalar found where operator expected at (eval 153) line 1, near "'int' $__val" (Missing operator before $__val?) DIED. FAILED tests 1-2, 5 Failed 3/6 tests, 50.00% okay t/good.............ok t/ipaddress........ok t/longhostname.....ok t/mailto...........ok t/merge_urls.......ok t/shorthostname....ok t/spamcop_fetch....ok t/spamcopuri.......ok t/whitelist........ok Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t/dnsrbl.t 3 768 6 3 50.00% 1-2 5 Failed 1/13 test scripts, 92.31% okay. 3/62 subtests failed, 95.16% okay. make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 255 [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# Any suggestions? Regards /Steve

2 3

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] multiple domains in spam body
by Scott Truman 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Good point. There could be a setting for the max number of SURBL callouts. If they did decide to place a large number of 'legit' URLs, they would probably have to hide them using an invisible font, obsufication or some such, so the spamee could only click on the intended URL. However, with many hidden URLs, this would give spam detection engines (SpamAssassin) more spam material to act on, and additional rules could be added to the detection set. Bayesian analysis itself would more than likely pick this up with minimal training. Cheers Scott -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony McCarthy Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2004 10:18 a.m. To: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] multiple domains in spam body I dont know if I have missed any discussion on this topic - but suppose the SPAMMER just loads up the body with random domains - that means lots of surbl calls. It seems too easy for spammers to foil this technique. Anthony _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

multiple domains in spam body
by Anthony McCarthy 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

I dont know if I have missed any discussion on this topic - but suppose the SPAMMER just loads up the body with random domains - that means lots of surbl calls. It seems too easy for spammers to foil this technique. Anthony

3 2

Test domains for ws.surbl.org
by ITReading ITReading 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Is there a test record in ws.surbl.org? Thanks, Charles

2 1

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] What list does ws.surbl.org represent?
by William Stearns 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Good morning, Charles, > >>> William Stearns <wstearns(a)pobox.com> 04/13/2004 9:39:49 AM >>> > Good day, > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, ITReading ITReading wrote: > > > I'm sure this has already been clarified, but I think I may not have > > joined the list when it was mentioned. Does ws.surbl.org reflect the > > contents of "sa-blacklist-uri.cf" or "sa-blacklist" or both? > > Both lists contain essentially the same domains, but check > different things. sa-blacklist.cf checks the sender domain, > sa-blacklist.uri.cf checks urls in the body of the mail. > So the ws.surbl.org really replaces the sa-blacklist.uri.cf. On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Charles Solomon wrote: > Thanks William, > One more question. Since both lists contain the same domains, and this > list is now published at ws.surbl.org, couldn't I implement something > like the following in addition to the SpamCopURI to get the benefits of > SA-Blacklist in the FROM headers? > > header RCVD_IN_WSSURBL eval:check_rbl('ws.surbl.org', '127.0.0.2') > describe RCVD_IN_SORBS WS-SURBL: sender is listed in ws.surbl.org > tflags RCVD_IN_SORBS net I honestly don't know the answer to that. Does anyone know if that will successfully check the sender domain? Cheers, - Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, and lines to code before I sleep, And lines to code before I sleep. -- Stephen Williams (Courtesy of Ben Woodard <bwoodard(a)cisco.com>) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wstearns(a)pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f, rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] SURBL test
by Kevin Hanser 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

-----Original Message----- From: Don Newcomer [mailto:newcomer@dickinson.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 14:22 To: SURBL Discussion List Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] SURBL test I'm in the process of building SpamCopURI 0.09 on a Tru64 UNIX v5.1B box using Perl 5.8.3. The 'make test' phase failed on only one test: PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/ucb/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/bad..............ok t/blacklist........ok t/cache............ok t/dnsrbl...........ok 4/6# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25) t/dnsrbl...........NOK 5# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 6. t/dnsrbl...........dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 5 Failed 1/6 tests, 83.33% okay Don, Someone else posted on the MailScanner list a fix that got me past this problem. On line 25 of the dnsrbl.t file, change the IP address from 211.147.224.30 to 127.0.0.2. That seems to make the test complete properly... I think someone also said that it was fixed in the next version, but one of the developers should be able to confirm that... k

4 4

SURBL test
by Don Newcomer 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

I'm in the process of building SpamCopURI 0.09 on a Tru64 UNIX v5.1B box using Perl 5.8.3. The 'make test' phase failed on only one test: PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/ucb/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/bad..............ok t/blacklist........ok t/cache............ok t/dnsrbl...........ok 4/6# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25) t/dnsrbl...........NOK 5# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 6. t/dnsrbl...........dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 5 Failed 1/6 tests, 83.33% okay t/good.............ok t/ipaddress........ok t/longhostname.....ok t/mailto...........ok t/merge_urls.......ok t/shorthostname....ok t/spamcop_fetch....ok t/spamcopuri.......ok t/whitelist........ok Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t/dnsrbl.t 1 256 6 1 16.67% 5 Failed 1/13 test scripts, 92.31% okay. 1/63 subtests failed, 98.41% okay. *** Exit 2 Stop. Given that the test at line 25 of t/dnsrbl.t goes to "http://211.147.224.30/baddy" and when I telnet to that address, port 80, it refuses my connection, can I safely assume that all went well and install the software? Thanks in advance. ================================================================================ Don Newcomer Dickinson College Senior Manager, Systems P.O. Box 1773 newcomer(a)dickinson.edu Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 245-1256 FAX: (717) 245-1690

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] t/dnsrbl...........ok 4/6# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25)
by Scott Truman 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Hi, I too am getting the exact same errors. I eagerly await that fix. Cheers Scott

2 2

What list does ws.surbl.org represent?
by ITReading ITReading 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

I'm sure this has already been clarified, but I think I may not have joined the list when it was mentioned. Does ws.surbl.org reflect the contents of "sa-blacklist-uri.cf" or "sa-blacklist" or both? Thanks! Charles

3 2

Redirects and obfuscated urls
by John Fawcett 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

I saw a post on NANAE over the weekend about surbl and it looks like one of the best ideas I've seen. Almost every spam mail I get contains a spamvertized domain, so with good data this method has the potential to block nearly 100% of spam. Spamvertized domains are an essential resource for spammers and are usually longer lived then the abused servers used to send out spam runs. I've set up SpamAssassin and SpamCopURI. I've checked the emails which are not being picked up by surbl and there is a recurring pattern: 1) Redirects 2) Obfuscated urls For example, this was not picked up. <a href=http://drs.yahoo.com/higherillomened./mensuraltalk/*%68ttp://enginery.s hopinternetbuy.biz/%75n%73ub.html target=_blank> shopinternetbuy.biz is in sc.surbl.org. The logic of the parsing engine needs to be enhanced to deal with these cases. This is probably only the start, because spammers will find other ways to get around surbl once it starts being used widely. I'd offer to look at it, but I wouldn't know where to start with perl. John

2 3

DNS load on slartibartfast.pa.net
by William Stearns 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Good evening, all, It's still early in the project, but a few quick observations. Using dnstop and tethereal, I've seen that in the last 24 hours we've had 570K DNS queries to slart, the 5th/6th nameserver for {sa,sc}.surbl.org. 84% of those - 475K queries - have been to surbl.org. The next closest was in-addr.arpa with 12K and 7500 or less for everything else (that "everything else" category includes being a primary or secondary for 130 other domains and the primary nameserver for 28 machines). Of that 475K, 400K were to sc.surbl.org and 43K to sa.surbl.org. I suppose the rest were to jeff.chan.rox.surbl.org. *smile* More recent nameserver stats show the RBL is hovering around 90.2% of the queries to that nameserver. Oh, and did I mention that the nameserver is running on one of 27 User-Mode Linux virtual machines (*) running on top of a dual 1.4Ghz P3? The host machine load runs from 3.0 - 5.0 (but 2 of that is from the distributed.net CPU sponge, so really the load is 1.0 - 3.0). It'll be interesting to see just how high the load goes as more people come on, especially when SA 3.0 comes out. *gulp* :-) Cheers, - Bill * http://66.59.109.137:1500 , http://www.stearns.org/slartibartfast/uml-coop.current.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "NT 5.0 is the last nail in the Unix coffin. Interestingly, Unix isn't in the coffin... It's wondering what the heck is sealing itself into a wooden box 6 feet underground..." (Courtesy of Jason McMullan <jmcc(a)grits.visus.com>) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wstearns(a)pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f, rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 6

Here it comes.
by William Stearns 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Good afternoon, all, The slashdot effect is probably hammering surbl.org right now. Someone posted surbl.org to http://slashdot.org/ The slashdot comments aren't terribly positive - I have no problem with that. I figure I'll keep contributing as long as it continues to be useful. Cheers, - Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "NT 5.0 is the last nail in the Unix coffin. Interestingly, Unix isn't in the coffin... It's wondering what the heck is sealing itself into a wooden box 6 feet underground..." (Courtesy of Jason McMullan <jmcc(a)grits.visus.com>) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wstearns(a)pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f, rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 4

RFC: New name for sa.surbl.org
by Jeff Chan 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

OK Looks like someone (lol I'm nominated, I guess) needs to put his foot down and set a new name for sa.surbl.org, our RBL version of Bill Stearns' sa-blacklist SA ruleset. I suggested "sb", though that's slightly confusing with sc. Bill suggested ws or sb would work for him. Does anyone else have any comments or idea? We should change this soon before too many people start coding in "sa.surbl.org". Please comment if you have any. ;-) Thanks, Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

4 7

[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Simple install instructions for spamcopuri0.09 on Win32
by ITReading ITReading 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

I forgot to mention that my instructions are written from the point of view of a "Guinevere" (www.beginfinite.com) user and are written for users of Guinevere. However, I expect steps 1-7 to work on just about any Win32 implementation of SA (on ActivePerl 5.6.1). I hope this makes things a little clearer. Thanks! Charles >I have successfully installed SURBL support and have it up and running in my environment. > >I documented my procedures at www.aldridge-borden.com/surbl.html if anyone is interested. > >P.S. Jeff C, if you want to host this file somewhere on surbl.org, you certainly have my blessing. If its worth hosting. Even though >the instructions are really simple, they have been helpful to some Win32 users as they often aren't too Perl savvy (I'm one of >them!). > >Charles Solomon

2 2

[SURBL-Discuss] t/dnsrbl...........ok 4/6# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25)
by Cal Evans 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

PERL Version 5.8.0 Everything seems to compile just fine but make test returns: PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/bad..............ok t/blacklist........ok t/cache............ok t/dnsrbl...........ok 4/6# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25) t/dnsrbl...........NOK 5# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 6. t/dnsrbl...........dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 5 Failed 1/6 tests, 83.33% okay t/good.............ok t/ipaddress........ok t/longhostname.....ok t/mailto...........ok t/merge_urls.......ok t/shorthostname....ok t/spamcop_fetch....ok t/spamcopuri.......ok t/whitelist........ok Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t/dnsrbl.t 1 256 6 1 16.67% 5 Failed 1/13 test scripts, 92.31% okay. 1/63 subtests failed, 98.41% okay. make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 255 Make install works but spamassassin --lint fails on the spamcop rule: Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /usr/share/spamassassin/81_spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /usr/share/spamassassin/20_uri_tests.cf, rule URI_OFFERS, line 175, near "; }" ) Anyone have any ideas? TIA! =C= * Cal Evans * http://www.eicc.com * We take care of your IT, * So you can take care of your business. * * I think inside the sphere.

2 1

[SURBL-Discuss] Simple install instructions for spamcopuri0.09 on Win32
by ITReading ITReading 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

I have successfully installed SURBL support and have it up and running in my environment. I documented my procedures at www.aldridge-borden.com/surbl.html if anyone is interested. P.S. Jeff C, if you want to host this file somewhere on surbl.org, you certainly have my blessing. If its worth hosting. Even though the instructions are really simple, they have been helpful to some Win32 users as they often aren't too Perl savvy (I'm one of them!). Charles Solomon

1 0

make test fail - SpamCopURI.pm line 117
by Jason Portwood 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Greetings, I'm trying to install SpamCopURI and I've hit a snag on the make test Here's what I'm getting: PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -Iblib/arch -Iblib/lib -I/usr/libdata/perl/5.00503/mach -I/usr/libdata/perl/5.00503 -e 'use Test::Harness qw(&runtests $verbose); $verbose=0; runtests @ARGV;' t/*.t t/bad...............syntax error at blib/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/SpamCopURI.pm line 117, near "$f :" BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at t/bad.t line 5. # Looks like your test died before it could output anything. dubious Test returned status 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) DIED. FAILED tests 1-5 My perl version is: This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for i386-freebsd. I also installed the URI perl module that was needed. Any thoughts on what could be going on? I may just move on to SpamAssassin 3.0 with the 3.0 plugin and see if it clears up. Thank you, Jason Portwood jason(a)wkrp.com

2 2

Slashdot about SURBL
by Jeff Chan 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

Made Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/ A New Type Of Realtime Blocklist: The SURBL Posted by timothy on Monday April 12, @05:02PM from the chicken-egg-spam dept. Glamdrlng writes "The SURBL, or "Spam URI Realtime Blocklist", represents a nexus of RBL's and content filtering that may bring us one step closer to a spam magic bullet. While traditional RBL's perform a DNS lookup on the connecting mail server, SURBL's take this a step further by parsing the text of the email looking for URI's and doing a lookup on those web servers. They also prevent "joe jobs" by maintaining a whitelist of legitimate web servers whose domain names may show up in spam messages, e.g. EBay, Paypal, Microsoft, etc. The only requirement to implement the SURBL is a plugin on your MTA such as spamassassin that can parse the body of each email. While there is no MTA that directly supports SURBL's without a plugin, the author hints at one being in development." http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/04/12/1956252.shtml?tid=111&tid=126&tid=95 Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

1 0

Ok you asked for it - lol
by Paul Barbeau 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

I can not get this to work and i know this is a double post so sorry about that I am using OpenBSD and i update Storable in CPAN and when i run "URI::QueryParam" i get "is up to date" however i am still getting t/bad..............ok t/blacklist........ok t/cache............ok t/dnsrbl...........NOK 5# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25) t/dnsrbl...........ok 6/6# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 6. t/dnsrbl...........dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 5 Failed 1/6 tests, 83.33% okay t/good.............ok

2 1

Re: Please sanity check sa.surbl.org announcement
by Daniel Quinlan 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

Jeff Chan <jeffc(a)surbl.org> writes: > Would you please do a spam and ham corpora check with > "sa.surbl.org" whenever you can? We'd really like to know any > false positives to remove if that's possible to determine. Pretty high FPs. OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME 11189 1200 9989 0.107 0.00 0.00 (all messages) 100.000 10.7248 89.2752 0.107 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) 6.095 56.2500 0.0701 0.999 1.00 1.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL 6.855 59.7500 0.5006 0.992 0.98 1.00 URIBL_SBL 9.545 72.8333 1.9421 0.974 0.95 0.01 T_URIBL_SA_SURBL 0.116 0.5000 0.0701 0.877 0.58 0.01 T_URIBL_DSBL The FP rate is higher than even SBL (which gets some collateral damage with URIBL due to the domain->NS->A method that focuses in on name servers). A few of my FPs are actually legitimate anti-spam domains. > We'd really like to know any false positives to remove if that's > possible to determine. Since the list is not regenerated every 4 days, I'm not sure it's a good idea for SA corpus maintainers to submit false positives since the FP rate would then be lower for us, but not much lower for most people. In other words, it would introduce a large corpus bias. > We deliberately did not want to combine Bill's list and mine not > so much due to not-invented-here syndrome but because their > source data is so different, and because their size and time > factors are pretty radically different at present. I gave some > of the original reasons in the proposed announcement which I had > not forwarded here yet, but will now. You could continue to offer separate queries for people who are mirroring the zones. A lot of blacklists offer both separate and multiple queries. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting

2 1

problems with SpamCopURI
by Russ Ringer 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

Hi I need some help with SpamCopURI. I made sure these modules were up to date: cpan> install LWP LWP is up to date. cpan> install URI URI is up to date. cpan> install Storable Storable is up to date. But I get this error with make test: # make test cp bin/spamcopuri-update blib/script/spamcopuri-update /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::MY" -e "MY->fixin(shift)" blib/script/spamcopuri-update PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/bad..............ok t/blacklist........ok t/cache............ok t/dnsrbl...........ok 4/6# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25) t/dnsrbl...........ok 6/6# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 6. t/dnsrbl...........dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 5 Failed 1/6 tests, 83.33% okay t/good.............ok t/ipaddress........ok t/longhostname.....ok t/mailto...........ok t/merge_urls.......ok t/shorthostname....ok t/spamcop_fetch....ok t/spamcopuri.......ok t/whitelist........ok Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t/dnsrbl.t 1 256 6 1 16.67% 5 Failed 1/13 test scripts, 92.31% okay. 1/63 subtests failed, 98.41% okay. make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 11 TIA for your help, -->Russ

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss