Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1867 discussions

[SURBL-Discuss] Fix for the "syntax error at /etc/pamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf" errors
by Daniel Patterson 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Hello all, This is a quick note to those who are getting the following errors under 2.63: Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping: ^I(syntax error at /etc/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /usr/share/spamassassin/20_uri_tests.cf, rule URI_OFFERS, line 175, near "; }" ) The cause of this error is the perl module loader path being set such that your new, shiny SpamCopURI classes are not replacing their original counterparts in the original SA distribution. I'm running Debian, and I noticed, in /usr/bin/spamassassin and /usr/sbin/spamd the following line: use lib '/usr/share/perl5'; The actual content of this line will vary depending on your system, but if you're experiencing the above error, this is the source of your troubles. To fix it, I add the following immedietly after the previous "use lib" line: use lib '/usr/share/perl5'; use lib '/usr/local/share/perl/5.8.3'; This prepends /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.3 to the module search path, which will make the newly installed Spamassassin modules be loaded in preference to those found elsewhere on your system. You could possibly also remove the "use lib" line altogether, but I haven't tried that. daniel

1 0

No install Problems with 0.10
by Paul Barbeau 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

I just ran "make test" for the first time with no errors (ya) so all the error with the 0.099 install have been fixxed. I am going to install it on a "clean" machine just to confirm i have no problems again. Paul

1 0

0.10 install difficulties
by Steve Wakelin 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Hello, Some background [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# uname -a Linux qmail.wcslnet.net 2.4.22-1.2174.nptl #1 Wed Feb 18 16:38:32 EST 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# perl -v This is perl, v5.8.3 built for i386-linux-thread-multi [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# rpm -qa | grep perl perl-DateManip-5.40-30 perl-URI-1.21-7 perl-XML-Dumper-0.4-25 perl-5.8.3-16 perl-DBI-1.37-1 perl-Filter-1.29-8 perl-HTML-Tagset-3.03-28 perl-Parse-Yapp-1.05-30 perl-libwww-perl-5.65-6 perl-libxml-perl-0.07-28 perl-XML-Encoding-1.01-23 mod_perl-1.99_12-2 perl-HTML-Parser-3.26-18 perl-XML-Parser-2.31-16 perl-libxml-enno-1.02-29 perl-DBD-MySQL-2.9002-1 [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# All other prerequisites installed. [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/bad..............ok t/blacklist........ok t/cache............ok t/dnsrbl...........NOK 1# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 16) t/dnsrbl...........NOK 2# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 18) t/dnsrbl...........NOK 5# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25) t/dnsrbl...........ok 6/6# Looks like you failed 3 tests of 6. t/dnsrbl...........dubious Test returned status 3 (wstat 768, 0x300) Scalar found where operator expected at (eval 153) line 1, near "'int' $__val" (Missing operator before $__val?) DIED. FAILED tests 1-2, 5 Failed 3/6 tests, 50.00% okay t/good.............ok t/ipaddress........ok t/longhostname.....ok t/mailto...........ok t/merge_urls.......ok t/shorthostname....ok t/spamcop_fetch....ok t/spamcopuri.......ok t/whitelist........ok Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t/dnsrbl.t 3 768 6 3 50.00% 1-2 5 Failed 1/13 test scripts, 92.31% okay. 3/62 subtests failed, 95.16% okay. make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 255 [root@qmail Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.10]# Any suggestions? Regards /Steve

2 3

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] multiple domains in spam body
by Scott Truman 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Good point. There could be a setting for the max number of SURBL callouts. If they did decide to place a large number of 'legit' URLs, they would probably have to hide them using an invisible font, obsufication or some such, so the spamee could only click on the intended URL. However, with many hidden URLs, this would give spam detection engines (SpamAssassin) more spam material to act on, and additional rules could be added to the detection set. Bayesian analysis itself would more than likely pick this up with minimal training. Cheers Scott -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony McCarthy Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2004 10:18 a.m. To: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] multiple domains in spam body I dont know if I have missed any discussion on this topic - but suppose the SPAMMER just loads up the body with random domains - that means lots of surbl calls. It seems too easy for spammers to foil this technique. Anthony _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

multiple domains in spam body
by Anthony McCarthy 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

I dont know if I have missed any discussion on this topic - but suppose the SPAMMER just loads up the body with random domains - that means lots of surbl calls. It seems too easy for spammers to foil this technique. Anthony

3 2

Test domains for ws.surbl.org
by ITReading ITReading 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Is there a test record in ws.surbl.org? Thanks, Charles

2 1

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] What list does ws.surbl.org represent?
by William Stearns 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Good morning, Charles, > >>> William Stearns <wstearns(a)pobox.com> 04/13/2004 9:39:49 AM >>> > Good day, > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, ITReading ITReading wrote: > > > I'm sure this has already been clarified, but I think I may not have > > joined the list when it was mentioned. Does ws.surbl.org reflect the > > contents of "sa-blacklist-uri.cf" or "sa-blacklist" or both? > > Both lists contain essentially the same domains, but check > different things. sa-blacklist.cf checks the sender domain, > sa-blacklist.uri.cf checks urls in the body of the mail. > So the ws.surbl.org really replaces the sa-blacklist.uri.cf. On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Charles Solomon wrote: > Thanks William, > One more question. Since both lists contain the same domains, and this > list is now published at ws.surbl.org, couldn't I implement something > like the following in addition to the SpamCopURI to get the benefits of > SA-Blacklist in the FROM headers? > > header RCVD_IN_WSSURBL eval:check_rbl('ws.surbl.org', '127.0.0.2') > describe RCVD_IN_SORBS WS-SURBL: sender is listed in ws.surbl.org > tflags RCVD_IN_SORBS net I honestly don't know the answer to that. Does anyone know if that will successfully check the sender domain? Cheers, - Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, and lines to code before I sleep, And lines to code before I sleep. -- Stephen Williams (Courtesy of Ben Woodard <bwoodard(a)cisco.com>) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wstearns(a)pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f, rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] SURBL test
by Kevin Hanser 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

-----Original Message----- From: Don Newcomer [mailto:newcomer@dickinson.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 14:22 To: SURBL Discussion List Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] SURBL test I'm in the process of building SpamCopURI 0.09 on a Tru64 UNIX v5.1B box using Perl 5.8.3. The 'make test' phase failed on only one test: PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/ucb/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/bad..............ok t/blacklist........ok t/cache............ok t/dnsrbl...........ok 4/6# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25) t/dnsrbl...........NOK 5# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 6. t/dnsrbl...........dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 5 Failed 1/6 tests, 83.33% okay Don, Someone else posted on the MailScanner list a fix that got me past this problem. On line 25 of the dnsrbl.t file, change the IP address from 211.147.224.30 to 127.0.0.2. That seems to make the test complete properly... I think someone also said that it was fixed in the next version, but one of the developers should be able to confirm that... k

4 4

SURBL test
by Don Newcomer 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

I'm in the process of building SpamCopURI 0.09 on a Tru64 UNIX v5.1B box using Perl 5.8.3. The 'make test' phase failed on only one test: PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/ucb/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/bad..............ok t/blacklist........ok t/cache............ok t/dnsrbl...........ok 4/6# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25) t/dnsrbl...........NOK 5# Looks like you failed 1 tests of 6. t/dnsrbl...........dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 5 Failed 1/6 tests, 83.33% okay t/good.............ok t/ipaddress........ok t/longhostname.....ok t/mailto...........ok t/merge_urls.......ok t/shorthostname....ok t/spamcop_fetch....ok t/spamcopuri.......ok t/whitelist........ok Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t/dnsrbl.t 1 256 6 1 16.67% 5 Failed 1/13 test scripts, 92.31% okay. 1/63 subtests failed, 98.41% okay. *** Exit 2 Stop. Given that the test at line 25 of t/dnsrbl.t goes to "http://211.147.224.30/baddy" and when I telnet to that address, port 80, it refuses my connection, can I safely assume that all went well and install the software? Thanks in advance. ================================================================================ Don Newcomer Dickinson College Senior Manager, Systems P.O. Box 1773 newcomer(a)dickinson.edu Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 245-1256 FAX: (717) 245-1690

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] t/dnsrbl...........ok 4/6# Failed test (t/dnsrbl.t at line 25)
by Scott Truman 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Hi, I too am getting the exact same errors. I eagerly await that fix. Cheers Scott

2 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