Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1867 discussions

surbl and squid
by Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Hello, I've just adapted an old script I use with squid to remove unwanted ads to use surbl... This works as a redirector - this means, each time someone ask for an url matching surbl database, squid will redirect the query to a locally saved web page - e.g. a web page showing the site policy or a simple error message. For the while, this is a very draft script, but it works fine. I'll surely improve it and maybe write a C version which shall be much faster for huge domains. You can get it at : http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr/surbl/squid-surbl-it All feedback is welcome. Best 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 2

Test points
by Daniel Kleinsinger 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Are there test points for any of the SURBLs besides SC? The surbl-org-permanent-test-point-MUNGED.com one only seems to hit SC. I'm asking cause I haven't had any hits on PH since I upgraded to SA3... I get hits on all the others. Thanks, Daniel

3 2

FP on WS
by Bill Landry 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Another one that does not need much in the way of justification: pitneyworks. com But in an effort to keep Jeff happy and quite: ;-) - Domain owned by Pitney Bowes and domain record created on 13-Aug-1998 - No SBL listings - No NANAS listings Bill

3 2

Possible WS FP: interactivefmg.com
by Jeff Chan 29 Sep '04

29 Sep '04

Does anyone with WS data source visibility know why this one was added: This is a forwarded message From: Jody Powell <jpowell(a)interactivefmg.com> To: whitelist(a)surbl.org Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 6:47:36 AM Subject: Blacklisted Domain Sirs, Our domain interactivefmg.com is on your blacklist. This domain handles our day-to-day corporate e-mail and no commercial solicitations orginiate from this domain with the exception of individual information packets sent to clients who have requested them via the telephone. Please remove us from your blacklist, or let us know what we need to do to meet the requirements to be whitelisted. Thanks, Jody Powell Network Administrator InterActive Financial Marketing Group, LLC 114 Virginia Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 -- Jeff Chan mailto:whitelist@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

2 3

RE: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to suesingle4y ou.net
by Chris Santerre 28 Sep '04

28 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:45 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to >suesingle4y ou.net > > >On Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 6:43:09 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> The only basis we still have is this guys word that he is >legit. Are we >> going to whitelist everyone who simply asks to be >whitelisted? Yes or No? > >No. Oh, now your taking the fun out of arguing with you ;) Did you break your JO cd? DOn't see ya playing much. --Chris (I need cover fire on the bridge!!!)

1 0

RE: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to suesingle4y ou.net
by Chris Santerre 28 Sep '04

28 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Alex Broens [mailto:surbl@alexb.ch] >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:52 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to >suesingle4y ou.net > > >Chris Santerre wrote: >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >>>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:18 PM >>>To: Frank Ellermann >>>Cc: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >>>Subject: Re: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to >>>suesingle4y ou.net >>> >>> >>>On Monday, September 27, 2004, 5:12:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: >>> >>>>Jeff Chan wrote: >>> >>>>>"A. Add domains that appear only in spam. Do not add any >>>>>domains that appear in ham." >>> >>>>As an absolute rule that won't work, because the criminal >>>>spammer talks with his rogue registrar in "ham". >>> >>>I don't consider spammer's messages to be ham. Only ham from >>>legitimate people (non-spammers) is ordinary ham. >>> >>>Jeff C. >>>-- >>>"If it appears in hams, then don't list it." >>> >> >> >> Oh yeah single4you.net is realy legit.... and I'm the queen >of England. >> Their site is back up, with personal ads that show picts of >people. Too bad >> one of the pics is snoop dog, and another is Conan the Barbarian!! > >LOL > >http://www.single4you.net/membership/homepage.aspx?mid=10980&vi sside=true :-) I read the snoop dog and conan ones. --Chris ( ilike ot play cricket chess)

1 0

RE: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to suesingle4y ou.net
by Chris Santerre 28 Sep '04

28 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:18 PM >To: Frank Ellermann >Cc: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >Subject: Re: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to >suesingle4y ou.net > > >On Monday, September 27, 2004, 5:12:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: >> Jeff Chan wrote: > >>> "A. Add domains that appear only in spam. Do not add any >>> domains that appear in ham." > >> As an absolute rule that won't work, because the criminal >> spammer talks with his rogue registrar in "ham". > >I don't consider spammer's messages to be ham. Only ham from >legitimate people (non-spammers) is ordinary ham. > >Jeff C. >-- >"If it appears in hams, then don't list it." > Oh yeah single4you.net is realy legit.... and I'm the queen of England. Their site is back up, with personal ads that show picts of people. Too bad one of the pics is snoop dog, and another is Conan the Barbarian!! The only basis we still have is this guys word that he is legit. Are we going to whitelist everyone who simply asks to be whitelisted? Yes or No? --Chris

4 3

RFC: SURBL inclusion policy
by Jeff Chan 28 Sep '04

28 Sep '04

In order to assist people hand-classifying spam URI domains and IPs for inclusion or non-inclusion in SURBLs, I've made a draft policy document: http://www.surbl.org/policy.html Please read it and post your comments. Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

6 38

SA 3.0/URIDNSBL Install Problems
by Alden Levy 28 Sep '04

28 Sep '04

Hi. While installing SA3.0 yesterday, I *think* I had a problem with URIDNSBL. I cannot get URIDNSBL to run unless I put the following in a cf file: loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL I originally had it in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, but I figure it's better where I have it now. Is it advisable to load this plugin elsewhere? If so, where? I am running RH 7.3, MS 4.33.3, Perl 5.6.1 with ClamAV (Mail::ClamAV v 0.11). The relevant (I believe) output of spamassassin -D --lint is: <snip> debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL from @INC debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) implements 'parse_config' debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) inhibited further callbacks debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) inhibited further callbacks debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) inhibited further callbacks debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) inhibited further callbacks debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) inhibited further callbacks debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) inhibited further callbacks debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) inhibited further callbacks debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) inhibited further callbacks <snip> debug: ---- MIME PARSER END ---- debug: metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Trusted: debug: metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted: debug: decoding: no encoding detected debug: Loading languages file... debug: Language possibly: en,sco debug: metadata: X-Languages: en sco debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) implements 'parsed_metadata' debug: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes debug: Net::DNS version: 0.48 debug: trying (3) intel.com... debug: looking up NS for 'intel.com' debug: NS lookup of intel.com succeeded => Dns available (set dns_available to hardcode) debug: is DNS available? 1 debug: URIDNSBL: domains to query: debug: Running tests for priority: 0 debug: running header regexp tests; score so far=0 debug: registering glue method for check_uridnsbl (Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454)) debug: all '*From' addrs: ignore(a)compiling.spamassassin.taint.org debug: all '*To' addrs: debug: running body-text per-line regexp tests; score so far=-3.174 debug: running uri tests; score so far=-3.174 Razor is working, Bayes is working and SURBL does work, I'm just wondering if this is optimal, or if I just got lucky. BTW, URIDNSBL.pm is in /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/ Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Alden

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] SA 3.0/URIDNSBL Install Problems
by Chris Santerre 27 Sep '04

27 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Alden Levy [mailto:alden@engineno9inc.com] >Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 4:01 PM >To: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] SA 3.0/URIDNSBL Install Problems > > >Hi. > >While installing SA3.0 yesterday, I *think* I had a problem >with URIDNSBL. >I cannot get URIDNSBL to run unless I put the following in a cf file: >loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL > >I originally had it in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, but >I figure it's >better where I have it now. > >Is it advisable to load this plugin elsewhere? If so, where? > >I am running RH 7.3, MS 4.33.3, Perl 5.6.1 with ClamAV (Mail::ClamAV v >0.11). > >The relevant (I believe) output of spamassassin -D --lint is: ><snip> >debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL from @INC >debug: plugin: registered >Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) >debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8d44454) *snip* This "inhibited further callbacks" is exactly what I am getting now. However I haven't changed over the running spamc is still 2.4 for now. I want to solve this problem first. Make sure you have all the prerequesits installed. They are listed int he INSTALL file. I'm doing this tomorrow. If not, I'm wondering if this has to do with my firewall not letting it out or something. Haven't got a chance to dig any further, and that is just a theory. Also how did you get the output captured from the lint?? I tried all the obvious things but it won't redir the output!!! --Chris

2 1

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