Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

2 participants
1870 discussions

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Please test ob, ob2, ab
by Joseph Burford 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

> > ob2.surbl.org > > Please beta test it against ob.surbl.org Jeff, Data from my test box is below, hope this helps. 25/06/2004 - 3,756 messages 1,816 marked as spam Description Total Ham % Spam % URL in ws.surbl.org 802 9 1.1 793 98.9 URL in ob.surbl.org 711 10 1.4 701 98.6 URL in sc.surbl.org 621 1 0.2 620 99.8 URL in ob2.surbl.org 617 1 0.2 616 99.8 URL in ab.surbl.org 377 6 1.6 371 98.4 URL in be.surbl.org 44 0 0 44 100 26/06/2004 - 2,362 messages 1,566 marked as spam Description Total Ham % Spam % URL in ob.surbl.org 678 1 0.1 677 99.9 URL in sc.surbl.org 626 0 0 626 100 URL in ob2.surbl.org 624 0 0 624 100 URL in ws.surbl.org 576 1 0.2 575 99.8 URL in ab.surbl.org 415 17 4.1 398 95.9 URL in be.surbl.org 70 0 0 70 100 27/06/2004 - 1,956 messages 1,313 marked as spam Description Total Ham % Spam % URL in sc.surbl.org 625 0 0 625 100 URL in ws.surbl.org 622 2 0.3 620 99.7 URL in ob.surbl.org 590 0 0 590 100 URL in ob2.surbl.org 590 0 0 590 100 URL in ab.surbl.org 423 0 0 423 100 URL in be.surbl.org 32 0 0 32 100 Regards, Joseph

2 1

Multiple URIs
by David Coulson 27 Jun '04

27 Jun '04

I sent myself an e-mail with two URIs, two different domains, which are in a number of surbl lists (sc, ws and ob specificly). However, only the first domain was actually 'caught' and included in the spam filter report in SA (2.63). Shouldn't each specific domain which is included in a SURBL be used to establish a score? I know it's unusual for a spam to include a URI for two different domains, but shouldn't it increase the score anyway? David

4 4

[SURBL-Discuss] ob and ab added to multi.surbl.org, docs updated for multi use
by Jeff Chan 27 Jun '04

27 Jun '04

We've added the content from ab and ob into multi.surbl.org, so it now has all the currently active lists: http://www.surbl.org/lists.html with the following bitmasks representing the different lists: 2 = comes from sc.surbl.org 4 = comes from ws.surbl.org (and be.surbl.org) 8 = comes from phishing list (labelled as ph in multi) 16 = comes from ob.surbl.org 32 = comes from ab.surbl.org I've also updated the SURBL Quick Start page: http://www.surbl.org/quickstart.html to link to the updated URIDNSBL.pm page containing the urirhssub program which can use multi.surbl.org: http://spamassassin.org/full/3.0.x/dist/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/URIDNS… and also added sample configs for using multi.surbl.org based on the sample URIBL configs at: http://www.spamassassin.org/full/3.0.x/dist/rules/25_uribl.cf Would someone who has actually used urirhssub please check the sample configs and scores for correctness? Updating the documentation like this is in preparation for the release of SA 3.0. Does anyone have any thoughts on when we should announce the multi.surbl.org support? Should it wait until 3.0 is fully released or not? Jeff C.

2 2

[SURBL-Discuss] One resource in identifying spammers trying to use your service
by William Stearns 26 Jun '04

26 Jun '04

Good afternoon, administrator, Thanks for providing the tinyurl service - the links you provide are a lot easier to type. I'd like to offer one free resource to you in trying to keep your system from being abused by spammers. I maintain a blacklist of spam domains at http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/ ; the specific file you'll probably want is http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current.domains . This is a list of ~22,700 spammer domains. Would you consider checking the domains people submit for tinyurl against that list as part of the tinyurl creation process, and if found, perhaps not provide a tinyurl for it? If you'd rather not check against a file that large or you want to do this over dns, you can also place a lookup for that domain against submitted.domain.ws.surbl.org - if you get back an "A" record for it, it's in the above list. More details at http://www.surbl.org . Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Cheers, - Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Silly hacker, root is for administrators." -- Unknown (Courtesy of Fabrice MARIE <fabrice(a)celestix.com>) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wstearns(a)pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f, rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[SURBL-Discuss] Please test: ob.surbl.org - Outblaze spamvertised sites
by Jeff Chan 26 Jun '04

26 Jun '04

Please start testing: ob.surbl.org on your low-volume mail servers. Currently it's hosted only on a few name servers, so please don't put it into production on any high volume mail servers yet. We are particularly interested in hearing your False Positive rates. If the testing is successful we will ask the rest of our name servers to carry it, document it, announce it, etc. This list has about 40k domains on it. We still looking for ways to prune it down, for example by expiring domains that no longer resolve. If someone had a reliable master list of expired domains, that could be very helpful. The data for this list is kindly supplied by Outblaze, and they use it internally for blocking spams. Here is how Yusuf Goolamabbas describes the data sources: __ We gather the domains 4 different ways: 1) spam complaints that have been handled by a human (postmaster/abuse/support people who actually see the spam). for the next 3, "new" is defined as: Whois reports the domain as newly registered(registered within last 90 days) 2) crawling thru our undeliverable outbound queues. When we get spam from a domain (mailFrom), some bounces are generated. These bounces are handled by a central queue. That central queue is looked at every 60 minutes to see where emails are bound to. If the domain they are bound to is "new" - the domain is blocked. 3) spamtrap body analysis: We have an extensive set of spamtraps. The emails to these accounts are analysed and URLs are extracted. For any domain found in these emails, we check for "new" and if so, its blocked. 4) spam complaint body analysis: Similar to spamcop/yahoo/AOL, we have a feature that allows our users to complain about individual emails "This is spam". All these complaints are analysed and URLs extracted from bodies. If any of these are "new", they are automatically blocked. We currently do not have a whitelist as we have never needed it. Several things prevent the need for a whitelist: a) humans that are allowed to do the blocks know what they are doing :-) b) machines that are doing the blocks will only block based on "new" c) machines cannot block any domain that was previously blocked and then unblocked by human. We do not currently remove/expire domains automatically although its under consideration. Removal procedure is by contacting postmaster at outblaze.com __ We are working with Outblaze to not include some of the domains that are less appropriate for SURBLs, but so far the data looks like it could be quite useful. Please give it a try and let us know what you find. Thanks, Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

5 8

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Hello
by Dave Navarro 26 Jun '04

26 Jun '04

At 6/25/2004, you wrote: >What lists did you tst, and in what way? I think quantity should not >matter, but quality does. Overhere its catching up 73% of my spam, i dont >see any other RBL doing that currently. Which lists are you checking against? I'm getting between a 10% and 20% catch rate. If I change my code to check both the domain and the IP address for each domain, that goes up to around 30%. I added code that allows me to add my own domains and IP's to a private blacklist. After adding about 100 or so to the private blacklist, I find that the catch rates goes up to 60%. I added another 300 to my private blacklist last night and its up to around 90%, but I did get 3 false positives last night. For my testing I'm simply adding an X-SPAM header and I'm only running it against my own personal domain, none of my clients. --Dave

3 2

Re: Please test ob, ob2, ab
by Alden Levy 26 Jun '04

26 Jun '04

FWIW, I haven't had any fp's, and I've been testing all three since they were released to this list. Of course, I only get about 100-200 spam per day (and 50-100 ham) on my domains. Thanks for all of your hard work! SURBL really reduced my unmarked spam considerably (~75%) over what slipped through with just MS and SA. Regards, Alden Alden Levy Engine No. 9, Inc. 130 W. 57th Street, Suite 12E New York, NY 10019 (212) 981-1122 (212) 725-7202 fax

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] One resource in identifying spammers trying t o use your service
by Chris Santerre 26 Jun '04

26 Jun '04

Did something like this go to tinyurl.com? Great work Bill! --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: William Stearns [mailto:wstearns@pobox.com] >Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:48 PM >To: contact(a)littleurl.com >Cc: ml-surbl-discuss >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] One resource in identifying spammers trying to >use your service > > >Good afternoon, administrator, > Thanks for providing the littleurl service - the links >you provide >are a lot easier to type. > I'd like to offer one free resource to you in trying to >keep your >system from being abused by spammers. I maintain a blacklist of spam >domains at http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/ ; the specific >file you'll >probably want is >http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current.domain >s . This >is a list of ~22,700 spammer domains. Would you consider checking the >domains people submit for littleurl against that list as part of the >littleurl creation process, and if found, perhaps not provide >a littleurl >for it? > If you'd rather not check against a file that large or >you want to >do this over dns, you can also place a lookup for that domain against >submitted.domain.ws.surbl.org > - if you get back an "A" record for it, it's in the >above list. >More details at http://www.surbl.org . > Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. > Cheers, > - Bill > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------------ > "Silly hacker, root is for administrators." > -- Unknown >(Courtesy of Fabrice MARIE <fabrice(a)celestix.com>) >--------------------------------------------------------------- >----------- >William Stearns (wstearns(a)pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, >freedups, p0f, >rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

3 2

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Please test ob, ob2, ab
by jm＠jmason.org 26 Jun '04

26 Jun '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 My results, testing ph while I was at it: : jm 1351...; grep -v " 0\.500 " freqs OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME 121405 22516 98889 0.185 0.00 0.00 (all messages) 100.000 18.5462 81.4538 0.185 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) 13.453 70.3766 0.4925 0.993 1.00 1.00 SURBL_WS 3.807 20.3811 0.0334 0.998 0.50 1.00 SURBL_SC 2.650 14.2565 0.0071 1.000 0.50 1.00 SURBL_AB 0.019 0.0933 0.0020 0.979 0.50 1.00 SURBL_PH 12.624 67.6275 0.1001 0.999 0.50 1.00 SURBL_OB2 13.295 68.5113 0.7230 0.990 0.00 1.00 SURBL_OB OB2 looks pretty promising ;) The one PH fp is a link to this: http://qrxx.4t.com/barbieOS.htm (which no longer works, but 4t.com was a geocities-type hosting site as far as I know.) - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFA29FBQTcbUG5Y7woRApFTAKCPUG28qwlF7b4wjQkZzyUiZOckngCg1gV0 f9RqbGObobo3E47KBUQUDrI= =x9B1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 6

RE: [SARE] Bigevil IMPORTANT update/test.
by Chris Santerre 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Jezierski [mailto:ajezierski@stepan.com] >Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:30 PM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail); Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [SARE] Bigevil IMPORTANT update/test. > > > > > > >Chris Santerre <csanterre(a)MerchantsOverseas.com> wrote on 06/25/2004 >11:21:20 AM: > >> I have no idea how this will effect systems under heavy load. Those >systems >> should definitely stay with SURBL as this is just a local >regex copy of >it. >> But for those systems that can't/won't use SURBL and want a >local copy of >> this larger bigevil here is the link: (~600k) >> > >Will you be coming up with a MiniEvil that contains just the wildcard >rules? Or have all the wildcard sites been added to surbl >individually? > Yes I will be coming out with a wildcard BE. Scored much lower. WS.surbl.org will not contain those. I'm taking things one step at a time. I'm way behind in my other SARE projects even now. I can't thnk the other ninjas enough for picking up my slack. SARE and SURBL have great people involved in those projects. And of course, no of this would be possible without the great work of the devs! Who's Kung-fu is mighty! --Chris

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