David Hooton has made available to us MailSecurity's spamvertised
site data for public use. I have turned that data into a SURBL
list for testing:
ms.surbl.org
This is the same company that has provided the phishing data
currently in multi.surbl.org.
Please do corpus checks, etc. but don't use it on high volume
mail servers yet since it's only hosted on my mail server right
now. Please let us know what spam detection rates you get and
particularly about false positive rates.
At this point we don't know if the data will stay a separate
list, be added to multi only, get folded into ws, etc.
The results you report will help us decide that.
Jeff C.
Just released SpamCopURI 0.20. Biggest change is support for multi.surbl.org.
Let me know if you see anything strange. See the change notes below
for what you need to do for your config.
0.20 Sat Jul 31 22:02:20 PDT 2004
- adding max url config param to limit number of URLs checked
in an email. Usage (place into .cf file):
spamcop_uri_limit 50
Default is unlimited.
- adding support for multi.surbl.org / bitmasked results.
query results are cached on a per msg basis to prevent additional
lookups.
Modify your configuration to look like the following for sc.surbl.org:
uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/2')
describe SPAMCOP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in spamcop database at sc.surbl.org
tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL net
ws.surbl.org would look like this:
uri WS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/4')
describe WS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in ws database at ws.surbl.org
tflags WS_URI_RBL net
- Removed configuration params: spamcop_uri_src
and spamcop_uri_path since
these should never be used anymore.
- added cleanup for hosts that come in with a dot in front of
of the host (e.g. http://.spammy-site.org)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamcopuri/
--eric
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
>Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:27 PM
>To: SURBL Discuss
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Please beta test ms.surbl.org - data from
>Mai lSecurity
>
>
>On Monday, August 2, 2004, 8:09:49 AM, David Hooton wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:14:45 -0400, Chris Santerre
>> <csanterre(a)merchantsoverseas.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
>>> >Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:32 AM
>>> >To: SURBL Discussion list
>>> >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Please beta test ms.surbl.org
>- data from
>>> >MailSecurity
>>> >
>>> 3) When will we have an SURBL contributors BBQ? Soon I
>hope, I'm hungry!
>
>> Come to Sydney Australia - I'm sure MailSecurity would be happy to
>> throw a shrimp on the barbie! Sorry Chris - no Ice Hockey here
>> though!!
>
>Make it some prawns, and I'm there. ;-)
>
I'll eat just about anything :) We can play rugby, or any other sport in
which people try to hurt me! Is "Sheila" wrestling a sport down there? ;)
--Chris
RE: TTL/turnaround times for SURBL
This discussion seems to have gotten drowned
out by other recent discussions. I'd like to
see where this stands at this point.
In particular, Jeff noted that Outblaze updates
their data very fast in response to fast analysis
of their spam-trap data. But the OutBlaze feed
at SURBL get updated every six hours? Doesn't
that defeat the purpose. Would it be possible to
speed up the ob.surbl.org refresh so that
we can reap more benefits from their quick
responsiveness?
Also, it was mentioned that the sc.surbl.org
data updates every ten minutes? Is there
really substantial new or different data in
this feed to justify this? (in other words, is
there a system where very, very new
data causes quick updates to sc.surbl.org)
Finally, has any progress been made
speeding up the refresh times for
multi.surbl.org?
Rob McEwen
As postmaster, I see a lot of double-bounces for a user who forwards their
mail to a server that implements the policy:
550 5.7.1 mail containing 8aa.tXokG4N.fagonyenomy.org rejected -
sbl; see http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=201.3.240.234
They appear to be using the milter mentioned in
http://www.surbl.org/faq.html#numbered
Sure, fagonyenomy.org is in sc.surbl.org now, but these cretins register
new domains pointing at the same IPs on a (at least) daily basis, and there
is a time lag. The site they were spamming about this morning,
thebest-search.com.sc.surbl.org, exists only on ob.surbl.or, not sc or ws.
For the reasons mentioned in the FAQ, I do not agree with uri-to-ip-based
blacklisting as a blanket policy, but it does seem very effective in
dealing with these rapidly morphing porn spammers. I would like to give
such a rule a SA score of 4 or so.
In order to implement this nicely, I see a need for a *per surbl* switch in
SpamCopURI telling it whether to look up the domain, or the domain as
resolved to an IP. Configured something like
uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('sc.surbl.org','127.0.0.2')
uri SPAMHAUS_URI eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('sbl.spamhaus.org','127.0.0.2','ip')
Obviously there is no point in looking up fagonyenomy.org in spamhaus, nor
do I want to look up all resolved IPs in all surbls needlessly. I could
write completely separate code to do this, but I'd like to reuse the
url and redirector parsing infrastructure. Unfortunately I don't see a
clean way to do this without changing the internal hash structure.
Ideas?
Should I just wait for (or start experimenting with now) SA3's uridnsbl and
urirhsbl, which were designed for this? Yeah, that's what I was afraid
of...
I think I just answered my own question, but I'm curious what others think
and how others are dealing with this spam gang. I can't wait for a big ISP
to hit them with the big clue stick.
--
Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)brandeis.edu>
UNet Systems Administrator
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patrik Nilsson [mailto:patrik@patrik.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 3:10 PM
>To: SURBL Discussion list
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Hmmm....what if?
>
>
>At 17:47 2004-08-03 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>Chris Santerre wrote:
>>>What if I placed an SURBL server in the beginning of my DNS
>query list? Then
>>>users would actually check SURBL for a domain in a web page.
>If it is in
>>>SURBL they will get a 127.0.0.x and get error. Which is good!
>>
>>Works! All you need to do is add the multi.surbl.org ( or
>whatever list
>>you want to use ) to the Host Search order. So that x.com is
>looked up as
>>x.org.multi.surbl.org
>
>This would only work for x.com, not www.x.com, etc.
>The SURBL servers - correctly - return NXDOMAIN when queried
>for subdomains
>of listed domains, rather than treat the listed domains as wildcards.
>
>Also - this generates a lot of unnecessary dns queries for
>non-listed domains.
I hate to say it.....but... Patrik is right :)
--Chris
At 12:11 2004-08-03 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
>What if I placed an SURBL server in the beginning of my DNS query list? Then
>users would actually check SURBL for a domain in a web page. If it is in
>SURBL they will get a 127.0.0.x and get error. Which is good!
>
>Am I missing something, or is it that easy?
Your users would query for the RR host.domain.com, not the RR
domain.com.multi/xx.surbl.org.
Patrik