Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

2 participants
1870 discussions

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Need help with setup...
by Kristian Davies 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

Yeah cheers, i'd actually read that already... Anyway.. i just did a find on Conf.pm which came up with 3 diretories under /usr/lib/perl5 and i made sure that the 3 .pm files that come with SpamURI were the same and the ones in the perl directories, now --lint works fine. However the 3 directories it found all have lots of pm's in them not just these 3 that come with spamURI. I also re-installed. but it seems that spam is still not getting tagged with URI.... :-( >>Here is what Eric Kolve wrote recently about a similar >>error: > It looks like you have two Conf.pm files floating around. > > Do a locate for 'Conf.pm', you probably have one from a previous > perl install or SpamCopURI is going into the wrong place. > > You are looking for a directory that only has Conf.pm, PerMsgStatus.pm > and SpamCopURI.pm. Remove all those files and try re-installing. > > --eric >>Hope this helps, >>Jeff C. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Need help with setup...
by Kristian Davies 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

I use amavisd, and yes i have network test enabled. Basically i've been using current setup with amavis/sa/clamav, sorbs/spamhaus/spamcop etc without a hitch for a year or so. The only thing that doesnt work is spamuri which i added a couple of days ago. If i do spamassassin --lint, i get: Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list _spamcop_uri snurl.com *.snurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list _spamcop_uri snipurl.com *.snipurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list _spamcop_uri tinyclick.com *.tinyclick.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list _spamcop_uri babyurl.com *.babyurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list _spamcop_uri lin.kz *.lin.kz Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list _spamcop_uri *.v3.net Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list _spamcop_uri shorl.com *.shorl.com 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 Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule WS_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, lin e 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, lin e 6, near "} }" ) Any ideas...? Cheers -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: 16 August 2004 13:01 To: Kristian Davies Cc: 'discuss(a)lists.surbl.org' Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Need help with setup... On Monday, August 16, 2004, 3:52:37 AM, Kristian Davies wrote: > I have everything setup/installed, copied the pm into the relevant places > along with .cf, but still i'm not getting any hits. Do you have network tests enabled? http://www.surbl.org/faq.html#nettest > My SpamAssassin now has SURBL support but I'm not seeing hits. > If you recently added SURBL support to SpamAssassin but are not > seeing any SURBL (or other RBL hits), check that you have > enabled network tests. For example, if you're using spamd, make > sure it's started without the -L or --local flags, which force > local tests only. If you are running Amavis, make sure > amavisd.conf has $sa_local_tests_only = 0. (Uncomment this line > if it was commented out before, then set the value to zero to > enable network tests.) Jeff C. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] FP Pattern for sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
by Rich Graves 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Rob McEwen <rob(a)pvsys.com> wrote: > Sorry, I didn't mean to start such a ruckus. I have a proposal. I'll > re-configure my filter so that it only blocks those IPs at the MTA level > which are listed on both (1) DSBL (...AND...) (2) listed on at least one of > the two SpamHaus lists. This thread is increasingly off-topic, but I am interested in the outcome of your analysis. On my end, it's worth noting that SpamAssassin with SURBLs rejects 8.6% of messages that passed through all of our blacklist and antivirus checks. I've been doing multi-blacklisting for a couple years. Currently mail must be on at least two of three of bl.spamcop.net, sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org, and list.dsbl.org to be rejected. I have seen false positives on Chinese universities, but not much else. Our 55x rejects always give specific reasons and an invitation to contact postmaster@brandeis. Here's my numbers from our primary MX over the last 10 days. These rules are applied in the order below, i.e., if you're on both spamcop and spamhaus we don't check any other rules, and we don't even bother scanning .pif files with ClamAV anymore. 25,117 /etc/mail/access 42,407 bl.spamcop.net and sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org 3,366 sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org and list.dsbl.org 1,778 bl.spamcop.net and list.dsbl.org 16,067 messages with .pif, .cmd, .vbs, .cpl, or .scr attachments rejected 7,750 viruses detected by ClamAV 24,422 refused because SpamAssassin scored > 14.0 (to score so high, they usually need to be on more than one SURBL) 258,129 messages accepted for delivery Of the 258K messages delivered, 25,448 were tagged suspect with SpamAssassin score > 5.0 and 30,401 were on exactly one blacklist. -- Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)brandeis.edu> UNet Systems Administrator

1 0

Need help with setup...
by Kristian Davies 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

Hi All, I have everything setup/installed, copied the pm into the relevant places along with .cf, but still i'm not getting any hits. What are the debug steps... i cant think why its not working. SA 2.64 URI latest Tia, Kristian --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: (1) Another Possible FP, and (2) header p arsing issues
by Chris Santerre 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Rob McEwen [mailto:webmail@powerviewsystems.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 11:18 AM >To: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: (1) Another Possible FP, and (2) header >parsing issues >Importance: High > > >I have a two-part question: > >(1) header parsing issues... > >I was reading a web site discussing an implementation of SURBL on the >IceWarp web server (using a third party add-on). One person >complained that >there are too many false positives when submitting IPs and >domains found in >the header of the e-mail. They felt like ONLY the body of the >message should >be examined. I see good arguments both ways. For example, >parsing the header >can catch spam which was originally sent to one place, but >then forwarded to >another. On the other hand, actual affiliate URLs would only >normally occur >in the body of the message. Any thoughts or suggestions? > >(2) Another Possible FP... > >This person was asked to give an example of a message which >shouldn't have >been blocked and which would have gone through if the header >wasn't parsed. >They provided an example which had the following line in the header: > >Message-ID: <000b01c47f1a$e02f73e0$0200a8c0(a)MUNGED-callatg.com> > >The offending domain was MUNGED-callatg.com > >Therefore, I must ask, could MUNGED-callatg.com be a FP? The reason I >suspect so is because they mentioned that this company is a >division of GE. >Please check on this. > I'm confused. (Theres a first!) SURBL only check the body for URLs. How did the message-ID get hit? --Chris

9 25

Fwd: [SURBL-Discuss] FP Pattern for sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
by Jeff Chan 16 Aug '04

16 Aug '04

Spamhaus says: >From: Rob McEwen <rob(a)pvsys.com> >To: "'SURBL Discussion list'" <discuss(a)lists.surbl.org> >Date: Saturday, August 14, 2004, 1:52:26 PM >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] FP Pattern for sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org >RE: FP Pattern for sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org > >For a while now, my philosophy has been to use sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org to block >at the connection level and not even allow these messages onto my server. >Much of the remaining spam filtering is then done by SURBL-checking. >However, more recently, I been testing samples of sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org >blocked messages and I've noticed two things. > >(1) more false positives than I would want to see (though still a very tiny, >tiny percentage overall) get blocked by sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org > >...and... > >(2) those that ARE legitimate tend to be cases where a mistake was made and, >by the next day (or later that same day), the offending IP is removed from >sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org Hmmm, this can happen. Also depends on the volume of mail he processes. I'd be interested in if this is due to SBL or XBL hits. Both can produce FP's, but it brings up a debate as to what's an FP. If an IP has been found sending viruses or spam and is auto-listed by the XBL system (normally due to a compromised box), but that IP also sends non-bad email, it's not a false listing. We error on the side of stopping the 100,000 viruses being sent to users worldwide than to let the fewer legit emails pass. >However, I must admit, I'm drawing sweeping conclusions from very little >sampling of data. Therefore, don't take my word for it... If it's SBL, if he has a cousin in the Chinanet-CQ IP space, or in parts of Brazil Telecom's space, he'll probably see many more FPs as we do have large SBL listings. Also, if he gets email from people hosting on the cheap-spam-friendly networks like New Horizon, CET Networks or OC3, they get all IP space listed. >Rather, is this consistent with anyone else's experience with >sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org? The >reason I mention this is that, if my initial conclusions are true, there >would then be a strong argument for "holding" sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org blocked >mail and giving it a "second try" some hours later. He sure could, many people do greylist with DNSBLs. >Also, if this is true, >does anyone have a "feel" for exactly how long "bad" data stays on >sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org before it gets removed? No way to know. Most XBL listed IPs can be "self-removed", SBL mistakes that generate FPs are normally found out by us pretty quickly as either the blocked users or people who use us and like he, check their logs, let us know. >(Recognizing, of course, that >SpamHaus is probably the most reliable and respected free RBL in existence >and they rarely make mistakes in the first place). :-) >Any thoughts or suggestions? Has anyone examined their sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org >blocked messages lately? On large ISP type corpses, we still have a tiny fraction of true FPs. That being said, some places (with little volume or huge cheap bandwidth and lots of CPU) will just use SBL+XBL as a part of a SpamAssassin type formula. They won't toss on it being BL'd, but will want some other spammy trait to push it over the spam-score. >Rob McEwen

5 8

preparingforemergencies.co.uk false FP on OB
by Patrik Nilsson 15 Aug '04

15 Aug '04

preparingforemergencies.co.uk is listed on OB. It's a parody site that seem to be quite popular at the moment, getting forwarded in emails, mentioned in blogs, etc. I can't find any NANAS reports involving it. It is a quite recently registered domain though (26-Jul-2004) which might have contributed to it ending up on OB. Patrik

2 1

fp - sms dot ac
by Steven Champeon 15 Aug '04

15 Aug '04

...found in the latest Cryptogram (Bruce Schneier's mailing list). -- 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

sounddogs.com FP on WS.
by Patrik Nilsson 15 Aug '04

15 Aug '04

sounddogs.com is listed on WS. It's an online sound effects library that's been around since 1998. 1100 posts mentioning sounddogs.com found in Google News. None of them a NANAS report related to abuse from sounddogs.com. patrik

2 1

cross-pollination with MT-Blacklist?
by jm＠jmason.org 15 Aug '04

15 Aug '04

Hi SURBLers -- has anyone talked to Jay Allen and the MT-Blacklist people? MT-Blacklist -- http://www.jayallen.org/comment_spam/ -- is a blacklist of "bad" URLs (sound familiar? ;). They have quite a small list from the looks of things, but cross-pollination could work both ways; if *they* looked up SURBL, or even just looked up a "blog-spam" SURBL sublist, that'd be a lot more sensible. BTW I bet the blog spammers and email spammers are the same people. (If blog spammers are the people who *used* to do referrer spamming, then I'm *sure* of it -- see http://taint.org/2003/08/14/040652a.html ). Also -- some info on that google technique posted here and in SpamAssassin-users recently -- read this: http://kalsey.com/2004/07/new_comment_spam_technique/ "It appears the spammers have a new tactic in increasing their PageRank. They find a site that doesn't delete comment spam and fill it with links. Then they boost the PR of that site by spamming it in blog comments. Once the spam-friendly's site has in increased Google ranking, all those spammed links in their comments will get a boost in rank as well." I'll bet that's it -- working like so: 1. spammer S sets up payload site 2. S spams comment spam everywhere to up its PageRank 3. S email-spams with the google search URL 4. top hit for that phrase is the payload site. --j.

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss