Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1867 discussions

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Question re: integration with SpamAssassin 3.0
by alden＠engineno9inc.com 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:19:01 +0200 (CEST) > From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn <raymond(a)prolocation.net> > Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Question re: integration with > SpamAssassin 3.0 > To: SURBL Discussion list <discuss(a)lists.surbl.org> > Message-ID: > <Pine.LNX.4.61.0409261916300.22651(a)mailbox.prolocation.net> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Hi! > >> I have been using the SURBL plugin with SA 2.64 successfully and have >> just upgraded SA to 3.0. In the docs it states that it is best to >> use multi.surbl.org with 3.0. Is this configured by default >> somewhere or do I need to add the rule to local.cf?? > > This is enabled by default, of you have modules like Net::DNS installed. > >> I have been watching the spam processed so far this morning and I am >> getting hits on the lists I had configured with 2.64 but not multi >> which is why I ask. > > You still see the hits on the seperate lists. > > Thy show up like: URIBL_WS_SURBL and URIBL_OB_SURBL for example. > >> If I do need to add the rule, what is the exact syntax to use for >> 3.0?? > > No need to do that. > >> My apologies if this has been covered before - my searches came up >> pretty empty. > > A grep inside your rules dir would have told ;) > > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_SC_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 2 > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_WS_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 4 > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_PH_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 8 > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_OB_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 16 > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_AB_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 32 > > Bye, > Raymond. > > > ------------------------------ While it's true that the rules are there, don't we have to add scores to local.cf? (I upgraded this AM, too). Regards, Alden

2 1

Question re: integration with SpamAssassin 3.0
by Ed Kasky 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

I really hope that this is not too obvious but I can't find a clear answer to this so here goes ;-) I have been using the SURBL plugin with SA 2.64 successfully and have just upgraded SA to 3.0. In the docs it states that it is best to use multi.surbl.org with 3.0. Is this configured by default somewhere or do I need to add the rule to local.cf?? I have been watching the spam processed so far this morning and I am getting hits on the lists I had configured with 2.64 but not multi which is why I ask. If I do need to add the rule, what is the exact syntax to use for 3.0?? My apologies if this has been covered before - my searches came up pretty empty. Thanks. Ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Randomly generated quote: A closed mind is like a closed book: just a block of wood.

2 2

mailbacks.com OB FP?
by Jeff Chan 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

Does anyone have opinions on whether mailbacks.com should be whitelisted? Currently it's in OB, but it has no NANAS or SBL hits. Registrant: Vincent Associates INc (TOFGMBXNWD) 26 Lesmill Rd Toronto Ontario M3B 2T5 CA Domain Name: MAILBACKS.COM Administrative Contact: Vincent Associates INc royst(a)vincentinc.com 26 Lesmill Rd Toronto Ontario M3B 2T5 CA 416 445 5443 x 236 fax: 416 445 4504 Technical Contact: Retail Holding Inc. NSI nsiholding(a)verisign.com NSI Retail Holding Inc. 13200 Woodland Park Drive Herndon VA 20171 CH 818-547-9420 fax: 818-547-9420 Record expires on 12-Aug-2014. Record created on 12-Aug-2004. Database last updated on 26-Sep-2004 05: 11: 36 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS0.VINCENTINC.COM 209.5.255.57 NS1.VINCENTINC.COM 209.167.106.57 NS0.BIZCONTINUITY.COM 209.167.206.130 NS2.BIZCONTINUITY.COM 207.219.9.10 Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

2 4

Whitelisting doubleclick domains?
by Jeff Chan 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

Someone pointed out off list that Doubleclick domains appear in some of the SURBL lists, and that while they do appear in some spams, they also appear in a lot of hams. Therefore should we whitelist Doubleclick domains? Thanks to some good research tools, we have a list of some of them: * 1: 0mm.com * 2: 2clk.net * 3: abacus-direct.com * 4: businesslink-2.net * 5: businesslink.net * 6: cr-mail.org * 7: dartmail.com * 8: dartmail.net * 9: dartmail3.net * 10: dclk.net * 11: destinationwww.com * 12: double-click.com * 13: doubleclick.com * 14: doubleclick.de * 15: doubleclick.net * 16: maildart.net * 17: messagemedia.com * 18: opt-inemail.com * 19: optin-email.com * 20: unitymail.net Again, we know they appear in some spammy mailings. But do they appear in enough hammy messages to whitelist? Comments? Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

2 2

OB FP
by Theo Van Dinter 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

Found this during my weekly SpamAssassin net-test run: overseasvote2004.com -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Spending time with my ex-wife this weekend was more enjoyable than this interview, but it was close." - Unknown

2 1

SURBL classification control panel
by Yves Junqueira 24 Sep '04

24 Sep '04

How exactly do you guys add your domains? I've made another SURBL tool. It's a "spam-operator" interface with efficiency in mind, using Perl. It requires a database (MySQL, SQLite or any DBI-aware). This tool constantly reads a given directory (/var/vmails/spambox(a)domain.tld/) recursively, checking mail contents. At the momment, it's only supposed to gather SURBL in spamboxes, or boxes made of spam reports. The control panel is not intuitive. It is made to be efficient. It will extract all URIs and then use that to make a table, listing all domain it found, showing some info and the control options. ATM, it gives a the following options: 1) View the e-mail source, in plain text 2) Open that message in squirrelmail ( webmail) 3) Whitelist that domain 4) Ignore that domain (later it should only ignore the domain in that message only) 4) Add the "full domain" (kit.net, for example, is a brazilian free host that provide virtual domains. blablabla.kit.net should be added, not the whole kit.net) 5) Add the short domain (in that case, add kit.net) Wouldn't this be of use to some of you? I can show you a sample later, although it's ugly and using portuguese to describe the options. That is just a part of my efforts of making a antispam tools framework. After reading those policy proposed by Jeff Chan, I'll soon find a way to rate the domains and show those in symbolic colors in the list. The idea is to use whois to gather information (domain age, NS and domain owners historic ratings, etc) and other automatic techniques . I could even make historic rates for all domains, trying to certify that "if it appears in hams, then don't list it." What do you think? -- Yves Junqueira http://i-admin.blogspot.com

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Announce] ANNOUNCE: Adding new JP list to multi.surbl.org
by Mariano Absatz 24 Sep '04

24 Sep '04

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:58:42 -0700, Jeff Chan <jeffc(a)surbl.org> wrote: > [Please post follow ups to the SURBL discuss list or to me.] > > One of the distinct data sources currently feeding into > ws.surbl.org includes data from Joe Wein and Raymond Dijkxhoorn > with his colleagues at Prolocation. Raymond and Prolocation > are currently processing more than 300,000 potential spams per > day using Joe's jwSpamSpy server software and combining those > with Joe's own results. In addition to the data processing > software, Joe has an elaborate, thorough, and well-thought-out > set of inclusion criteria which includes age of domain > registration, manual checks, and other factors. The resulting > data are an extensive list of spam URI domains with a very > low false positive rate (hits on legitimate messages). We > are calling this resulting data JP for Joe Wein + Prolocation. > > The bottom line is that JP (called PJ in the table below) has a > significantly lower false positive rate than WS while having > similar spam detection rates, for example as measured against a > large corpora set belonging to Theo Van Dinter of SpamAssassin: > > OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME > 2424443 2357143 67300 0.972 0.00 0.00 (all messages) > 100.000 97.2241 2.7759 0.972 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) > 7.595 7.8122 0.0045 0.999 1.00 0.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL > 76.754 78.9448 0.0178 1.000 0.80 0.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL > 77.230 79.4340 0.0208 1.000 0.60 1.00 URIBL_PJ_SURBL > 0.985 1.0126 0.0045 0.996 0.50 0.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL > 82.119 84.4600 0.1367 0.998 0.40 0.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL > 0.021 0.0216 0.0045 0.829 0.00 0.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL > > So we feel the data could usefully be broken out into a > separate list which could safely be scored higher than > WS. We also continue to work on improving the False Positive > rate of WS of course. We propose making JP a separate list > within multi.surbl.org, but *not* a standalone list like > jp.surbl.org, since it's a major effort to set up entirely > new lists and most people should be using multi now. > > The main reason for announcing this change ahead of time > is to allow developers of the many programs (in addition to > SpamAssassin) now using SURBL data to update their code or > configurations to take into account that the result codes in > multi will be changing as a result of adding JP. JP would get > the 64 bitmask, as in: > > 2 = comes from sc.surbl.org > 4 = comes from ws.surbl.org > 8 = comes from phishing list (labelled as [ph] in multi) > 16 = comes from ob.surbl.org > 32 = comes from ab.surbl.org > 64 = comes from jp list > > So a record in SC, WS, and JP would give a value 127.0.0.70. > One with WS, OB, and JP would resolve to 127.0.0.84, etc. > Programs using multi.surbl.org should be updated accordingly. > > Since JP is currently included in WS, there will be 100% > overlap of JP entries in WS so that any record in JP will > also be in WS. In other words about half of the WS records > in multi will increase by 64 due to overlap with JP. But > WS will continue to use the 4 bit, as before. If your > programs are decoding the multi results using the bit > positions, they should need no adjustments to continue to > handle the WS data. > > We hope that 5 days is not too short notice for this kind of > change.... I will try to contact the developers of the various > (non-SA) programs separately to make sure they're aware of the > coming change. Hopefully most of them are on this announcement > list however. > > We were not able to get JP as a separate list in yesterday's > SpamAssassin 3.0.0 full release, but we have gotten it into > SA 3.1 development. > > For now the JP data will continue to be included in WS, > but just before Spam Assassin 3.1 gets released (probably in > 6 months to a year from now), we will remove JP data from WS > to make them separate lists within multi. This means that > SpamAssassin 3.0 and other current users of WS will continue > to to get the benefits of JP under their default shipping > configurations, and that JP can also be used separately by > those who modify their configurations to take advantage of it. > > In summary, we will: > > 1. Add JP to multi.surbl.org on Monday September 27th. > (Note that like PH, JP would not be available as a separate > list, only as part of multi.) > > 2. Keep the JP data in WS for now, so that regular 3.0 users > get the advantages of JP also (as part of WS). > > 3. Ask the SpamAssassin developers to score JP separately in > SA 3.1. > > 4. Remove JP from WS before the final SA 3.1 mass check and > re-scoring is done, to make the two lists more separate > for 3.1 . (Note that the separation is removal of the > specific subset arrangement suggested in #2. If that is > done, there will still be some minor overlap of the records > in WS and JP.) > > 5. Inform people about removing JP from WS before we do it, > so existing WS users can add JP, etc. > > Please post follow up questions or comments to the SURBL discuss > list or to me personally. It looks to me as a sensible way to handle this... I followed your advise about SURBL scoring in a thread a few weeks ago (I think Theo or another ninja also participated), but WS has a somehow low score... I didn't rise it, 'cause I have a setup that is very FP-sensitive (large ISPs), but would love to see high-quality, high-scoring multi sublists... Do you have a current reasonable scoring for jp? (that is, considering that, for now, this score will be added to the ws score, since, until SA3.1, jp will be a subset of ws. Thanx. -- Mariano Absatz - El Baby el (dot) baby (AT) gmail (dot) com el (punto) baby (ARROBA:@) gmail (punto) com

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: SURBL inclusion policy
by Chris Santerre 24 Sep '04

24 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 7:40 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: SURBL inclusion policy > > >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. Good work. No footnote for 90% spammy, then send to UC. :) --Chris

1 0

SURBL independent daemon, pluggable into amavis
by Yves Junqueira 24 Sep '04

24 Sep '04

Hi, for those that don't use SpamAssassin and would like to make SURBL checks on their mail, I've adapted Devin Carraway's plugin to qpsmtp, making a daemon that is independent, forking itself as needed. I believe it performs well, even on high traffic mail. Its simple usage interface, that was made with amavisd antivirus code in mind, is possibly usable by other services. Whenever a mail comes, one should connect to it and order it to scan the dir or file that message is on. # telnet 127.0.0.1 20098 SCAN /tmp/ Scanning /tmp/ Checking /tmp/filex8QBXY Checking /tmp/ldap18775 OK. OK Connection closed by foreign host. # # echo 'http://123getnow.com' > /tmp/a # telnet 127.0.0.1 20098 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to 127.0.0.1. Escape character is '^]'. SCAN /tmp/ Scanning /tmp/ Checking /tmp/a SPAMMEDURL: 123getnow.com in surblgoiano.com.br (SPAMMER 123getnow.com) Action: deny DENY Connection closed by foreign host. # Just check for "DENY" or "OK" and you're done. In this example, "surblgoiano.com.br" is my local RBL zone for bad URIs. It's easy to plug it into amavis: /etc/amavisd.conf: @av_scanners : (...) ['Suri', \&ask_daemon, ["SCAN {}/../email.txt\n", '127.0.0.1:20098'], qr/^OK/, qr/^DENY/, qr/^SPAMMEDURL:.*[(](.+)[)]/], (...) The important part there is: SCAN {}/../email.txt As you can see, there is a problem here. In this case, all messages with a spamvertised URI will be considered a virus, and actions will be taken aproprietely as per amavis config. In this case, I'd recommend using initially a non-deny "$action" setting, for seeing any potential problems in the logs (syslog) before really applying this "dangerous" policy. In any case, it is very recommended too that you quarantine these "infected" messages. This is a perl beginner's work, so please excuse any mistakes. It was made to fit my needs, as I maintain my own suribl zone, which is small, yet made for as little false positives as possible and with a special attention to brazilian domains. I haven't tested it with SURBL.org zones, yet. I am also making a transparent SMTP proxy for using with Postfix in servers with low traffic and/or running a local RBL daemon (rbldnsd). It would prevent losing e-mail. Any potential false positive would be notified by the SMTP reject code after the end of the DATA command block. Do you think it could be useful? You can get this plugin, that I called SURI, at http://i-admin.blogspot.com . I'd appreciate any comments very much. It's my first free software ever relased :-P -- Yves Junqueira nictuku - irc.freenode.net http://www.lynx.com.br

3 3

Whitelist data: Alexa.com top 500
by Joe Wein 24 Sep '04

24 Sep '04

Alexa by Amazon.com has a top 500 list on its site, which it derives from stats collected via its Alexa toolbar plugin. This may be a good source of whitelist data. Any site making that high score has the potential to cause a lot of collateral damage if blacklisted, since these appear to be sites that lots of real-life users *do* to visit regularly, as opposed to sites that advertisers suggest they visit, so they are likely to be mentioned in legitimate personal or business e-mail. Probably sites popular enough to be there have far more to lose than to gain from spamming anyway. I took the HTML from Alexa's five pages which listed 100 sites each, did a bit of text editing and hey presto: here's the list as an attached ASCII file. A quick check against my local blacklist yielded exactly 0 intersections :-) The following entries appeared in suspicious mail or as sender addresses and had been investigated by my filter (WHOIS lookup, etc.), but were not classified as spam domains: 163.net 39.net 888.com 8u8.com chosun.com ctinets.com dreamwiz.com eastday.com enet.com.cn etang.com freeservers.com globo.com km169.net linksynergy.com marktplaats.nl mingpao.com mingpaonews.com mym.net mypcera.com nastydollars.com nate.com naver.com nifty.com no-ip.com opendiary.com rambler.ru sayclub.com trafficmp.com xaonline.com yesky.com About a third of the top 500 sites (160) were already in my local whitelist. I'll probably add the rest to my whitelist too. Anybody here who can bulk-check these against SURBL, in case there are listed sites? Joe -- http://www.joewein.de/sw/jwSpamSpy/

3 2

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