Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

2 participants
1870 discussions

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] No install Problems with 0.10
by Paul Barbeau 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

ok then what am i missing could it be as i am running in CHROOT (OpenBDS) > -----Original Message----- > From: David Coulson [mailto:david@davidcoulson.net] > Sent: April 14, 2004 8:59 AM > To: Paul Barbeau > Cc: ''discuss(a)lists.surbl.org' ' > Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] No install Problems with 0.10 > > > Paul Barbeau wrote: > > I guess i spoke to soon.. The "make test" works and it > looks like the "make > > install" works however when i send an email through with > > "http://nothere/" in it nothing gets tagged. Is that the > correct URL > > to use to confirm it is working? > > It filtered it out here :-) > > 3.0 WS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in spamcop > database at > ws.surbl.org > [test.surbl.org is blacklisted > in SpamCop > RBL at] > [ws.surbl.org] > 4.0 SC_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in spamcop > database at > sc.surbl.org > [test.surbl.org is blacklisted > in SpamCop > RBL at] > [sc.surbl.org] > > David > > -- > David Coulson email: > d(a)vidcoulson.com > Linux Developer / web: > http://davidcoulson.net/ > Network Engineer phone: > (216) 533-6967 >

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] No install Problems with 0.10
by Paul Barbeau 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

I guess i spoke to soon.. The "make test" works and it looks like the "make install" works however when i send an email through with "http://test.surbl.org/" in it nothing gets tagged. Is that the correct URL to use to confirm it is working? Any ideas? Paul

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] 0.10 install difficulties
by Steve Wakelin 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

Raymond, It was Net::DNS that was not uo to the latest revision. Installed this from CPAN and all is now OK. Many thanks Regards /Steve -----Original Message----- From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] Sent: 14 April 2004 02:12 To: Steve Wakelin Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] 0.10 install difficulties Hi! > Logged out > # make clean > # perl Makefile.PL > # make > # make test > > Same error > Has anyone got it to work on FC1? I can try at work tomorrow to compile in on FC1, i currently are running the URI checks on 2 RH9 boxes. Bye, Raymond.

2 1

[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

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