Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1870 discussions

Syntax issues
by Joe Zitnik 04 Nov '04

04 Nov '04

I am having problems getting all of my SURBL rules to work. My rules are below. All my rules work except two of them (I think): URIBL_PH_SURBL and URIBL_AH_DNSBL I have check through my archived spam, and can find no hits on those rules. If I run spamassassin --lint, I get no syntax errors. Are my rules not working, or do those rules almost never hit? urirhsbl URIBL_SC_SURBL sc.surbl.org. A header URIBL_SC_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains a URL tflags URIBL_SC_SURBL net score URIBL_SC_SURBL 4.0 urirhsbl URIBL_WS_SURBL ws.surbl.org. A header URIBL_WS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_WS_SURBL') describe URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains a URL tflags URIBL_WS_SURBL net score URIBL_WS_SURBL 2.0 urirhsbl URIBL_OB_SURBL ob.surbl.org. A header URIBL_OB_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_OB_SURBL') describe URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains a URL tflags URIBL_OB_SURBL net score URIBL_OB_SURBL 4.0 urirhsbl URIBL_AB_SURBL ab.surbl.org. A header URIBL_AB_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_AB_SURBL') describe URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains a URL tflags URIBL_AB_SURBL net score URIBL_AB_SURBL 5.0 urirhssub URIBL_PH_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 8 header URIBL_PH_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_PH_SURBL') describe URIBL_PH_SURBL Contains a URL tflags URIBL_PH_SURBL net score URIBL_PH_SURBL 5.0 urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64 header URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL') describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains a URL score URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.0 uridnsbl URIBL_AH_DNSBL dnsbl.ahbl.org. TXT body URIBL_AH_DNSBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_AH_DNSBL') describe URIBL_AH_DNSBL Contains a URL listed in the AH DNSBL tflags URIBL_AH_DNSBL net score URIBL_AH_DNSBL 0.5

2 2

Nice URIDNSBL functionality
by Bill Landry 04 Nov '04

04 Nov '04

Folks, with some of the nice functionality that the SA devs built into the URIDNSBL plug-in (see http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin…), you can do cool things like: ===== # URIDNSBL (queries URIs against standard DNSBLs) uridnsbl URIBL_AH_DNSBL dnsbl.ahbl.org. TXT body URIBL_AH_DNSBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_AH_DNSBL') describe URIBL_AH_DNSBL Contains a URL listed in the AH DNSBL blocklist tflags URIBL_AH_DNSBL net score URIBL_AH_DNSBL 0.5 uridnsbl URIBL_NJA_DNSBL combined.njabl.org. TXT body URIBL_NJA_DNSBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_NJA_DNSBL') describe URIBL_NJA_DNSBL Contains a URL listed in the NJA DNSBL blocklist tflags URIBL_NJA_DNSBL net score URIBL_NJA_DNSBL 0.5 uridnsbl URIBL_SBL_XBL sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org. TXT body URIBL_SBL_XBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SBL_XBL') describe URIBL_SBL_XBL Contains a URL listed in the SBL-XBL DNSBL blocklist tflags URIBL_SBL_XBL net score URIBL_SBL_XBL 0.5 uridnsbl URIBL_SORBS_DNSBL dnsbl.sorbs.net. TXT body URIBL_SORBS_DNSBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SORBS_DNSBL') describe URIBL_SORBS_DNSBL Contains a URL listed in the SORBS DNSBL blocklist tflags URIBL_SORBS_DNSBL net score URIBL_SORBS_DNSBL 0.5 # URIRHSBL (queries URIs against standard RHSBLs) urirhsbl URIBL_AH_RHSBL rhsbl.ahbl.org. A body URIBL_AH_RHSBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_AH_RHSBL') describe URIBL_AH_RHSBL Contains a URL listed in the AH RHSBL blocklist tflags URIBL_AH_RHSBL net score URIBL_AH_RHSBL 0.5 urirhsbl URIBL_MP_RHSBL block.rhs.mailpolice.com. A body URIBL_MP_RHSBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_MP_RHSBL') describe URIBL_MP_RHSBL Contains a URL listed in the MP RHSBL blocklist tflags URIBL_MP_RHSBL net score URIBL_MP_RHSBL 0.5 urirhsbl URIBL_SS_RHSBL blackhole.securitysage.com. A body URIBL_SS_RHSBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SS_RHSBL') describe URIBL_SS_RHSBL Contains a URL listed in the SS RHSBL blocklist tflags URIBL_SS_RHSBL net score URIBL_SS_RHSBL 0.5 ===== I have been running these additional URI tests for about two weeks and have gotten very good results. If you decide to try out these tests, you may want to run them with minimal scores until you see how they are going to perform for you in your particular environment. Bill

6 12

Re: SURBL not working properly in SA 3.0.x (and MailScanner)
by alden＠engineno9inc.com 03 Nov '04

03 Nov '04

On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, 1:10:15 PM, Alden Levy wrote: >> Last week, I upgraded my server to FC1 (from RH 7.3). Sendmail, Ensim, and >> perl also got upgraded (to 8.12.x, 4.02, 5.8.1, respectively. >> Before the upgrade, everything worked well with SA 3.0.0 and MaliScanner >> 4.34. Now, SURBL doesn't work unless I do some really strange things. I've >> reinstalled SA, MS, and ClamAV, but no joy. I've since upgraded to SA 3.0.1, >> MS 4.35.9 and Mail::ClamAV 0.13. I already had ClamAV 0.80 installed. >> spamassassin -D --lint works fine, and when I test spamassassin with a SURBL >> URL, it gives the expected output. I don't get hits with MailScanner running >> unless I put the contents of 25_uribl.cf into my spam.assassin.prefs.conf >> (which has a link from local.cf). >> And my mail logs look fine, i.e., no errors, no MS restarts, etc. >Did you remember to change your URIBL rules from header to body? Yep. I did this (I, too, had hoped that this would fix my problem). Any other thoughts? Thanks. > http://www.surbl.org/ > Important Note Regarding SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later: When > adding URIDNSBL rules, including SURBL or SBL ones using > urirhsbl, urirhssub or uridnsbl, be sure to set the rule type > to body. For example: > > urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64 > body URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL') > describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Has URI in JP at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html > tflags URIBL_JP_SURBL net > > score URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.0 > > This is a change from SpamAssassin 3.0.0, where body above was > previously header. Here is the changelog reference: > > r54022 | felicity | 2004-10-07 22:21:30 +0000 (Thu, 07 Oct 2004) | 1 line > > bug 3734: uridnsbl rules work on body data, not header data, so change > the rule type from header to body >Jeff C.

3 2

SURBL not working properly in SA 3.0.x (and MailScanner)
by Alden Levy 03 Nov '04

03 Nov '04

Last week, I upgraded my server to FC1 (from RH 7.3). Sendmail, Ensim, and perl also got upgraded (to 8.12.x, 4.02, 5.8.1, respectively. Before the upgrade, everything worked well with SA 3.0.0 and MaliScanner 4.34. Now, SURBL doesn't work unless I do some really strange things. I've reinstalled SA, MS, and ClamAV, but no joy. I've since upgraded to SA 3.0.1, MS 4.35.9 and Mail::ClamAV 0.13. I already had ClamAV 0.80 installed. spamassassin -D --lint works fine, and when I test spamassassin with a SURBL URL, it gives the expected output. I don't get hits with MailScanner running unless I put the contents of 25_uribl.cf into my spam.assassin.prefs.conf (which has a link from local.cf). And my mail logs look fine, i.e., no errors, no MS restarts, etc. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Alden Alden Levy Engine No. 9, Inc. 130 W. 57th Street, Suite 12E New York, NY 10019 (212) 981-1122 (212) 725-7202 fax

2 1

applying surbl
by George Georgalis 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Q Q Q H A P P Y Q H A L L O W E E N Q Q Q ! I'm having trouble getting surbl to work... SpamAssassin Server version 3.0.0 running on Perl 5.6.1 I have /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm and I can see from the spamd startup logs I'm loding it twice in cf files: loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL and I have score URIBL_AB_SURBL 2.007 score URIBL_OB_SURBL 1.996 score URIBL_PH_SURBL 0.839 score URIBL_SBL 0.629 score URIBL_SC_SURBL 3.897 score URIBL_WS_SURBL 0.539 and I bumped up uridnsbl_timeout 8 but "it's not working" even when I cat spam with http://test.surbl.org/ to spamc -R, none of the surbl tests work. I was suprised to discover it doesn't check the body for foe, only the header, eg urirhssub URIBL_SC_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 2 header URIBL_SC_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC_SURBL') describe URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist tflags URIBL_SC_SURBL net but, it's not matching anything. What am I doing wrong? // George -- George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator Linux BSD IXOYE http://galis.org/george/ cell:646-331-2027 mailto:george@galis.org

3 4

Lists anounced on SA-dev and users
by Jeff Chan 31 Oct '04

31 Oct '04

FWIW I've announced these lists on spamassassin-dev and spamassassin-users. Hopefully we will get some additional interested folks to join in. Jeff C. __ Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

2 1

Pardon the old messages
by Jeff Chan 31 Oct '04

31 Oct '04

I fscked up and resent some old messages from April. Please discard those. Embarrassed, Jeff C.

1 0

LT02.NET
by Fred 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

Can someone tell me why LT02.NET is whitelisted? (don't tell me cause it's in ham) I would like an example if possible. They use open relays to send their spam, the have 8 nanas hits, the domain is fairly new like 2004-08-06 Hand checked, it does not look like a legit site. (main page is just a remove form.) I played around and found that if you visit: http://t.lt02.net/c.asp? it will redirect you to www.listrak.com which is also whitelisted (listrak has 31 nanas hits). Their mx record is an open relay, I think this is a very questionable domain to whitelist. http://ordb.org/lookup/?host=66.109.239.150 CALLING CHRIS, WE NEED THIS ADDED TO OUR GREYLISTING! Frederic Tarasevicius Internet Information Services, Inc. http://www.i-is.com/ 810-794-4400 mailto:info@i-is.com

4 5

RE: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] In support of Project Honeypot
by Chris Santerre 28 Oct '04

28 Oct '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:01 AM >To: SURBL Discuss; phpot-surbl(a)matthew.unspam.com >Subject: Fwd: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] In support of Project Honeypot > > >Here's a response to Chris Albert's concerns about Project >Honeypot from Matthew Prince, the head of Project Honeypot and >unspam.com. He also gives his direct phone number as: 312.543.3046. >Matthew's reply address is: phpot-surbl(a)matthew.unspam.com or >you may be able to reply all since I included this on the To: >list. > >I invited him to join our lists, but expect he may already get >plenty of mail. > >Jeff C. >__ > >It's a strange thing to have to prove that you're one of the >good guys. *snip* Oh no! It's worse then we thought! They aren't spammers, or spam helpers. They are lawyers! ;) J/K. I remember seeing the video on the MIT site from the conference. Its a very good idea. Which is why I'm one of the 50. But I don't get much traffic. I need to get a few more sites setup. --Chris (The curse has been reversed!)

3 2

Fwd: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] In support of Project Honeypot
by Jeff Chan 28 Oct '04

28 Oct '04

Here's a response to Chris Albert's concerns about Project Honeypot from Matthew Prince, the head of Project Honeypot and unspam.com. He also gives his direct phone number as: 312.543.3046. Matthew's reply address is: phpot-surbl(a)matthew.unspam.com or you may be able to reply all since I included this on the To: list. I invited him to join our lists, but expect he may already get plenty of mail. Jeff C. __ It's a strange thing to have to prove that you're one of the good guys. I've certainly been skeptical of a lot of supposed anti-spam websites that turned out to be nothing more than advertising schemes (for example, I was in part responsible for the FTC's investigation a few months ago of the subsequently shut down EthicalEmail.com site -- you may have heard the ads they were running on the radio about a "private national do not email registry"). It's good to ask questions, and I understand how things could look skeptical.... especially those Google ads. We've had a running debate all day ourselves about whether we should pull down the Google ads. As you know, we have no control over what ads appear on that site. I have no idea why Google has decided to put up ads for mailers on some of our pages. When we've used Google to serve ads to the News Ticker on our Unspam site they've typically been spam filter companies. Our goal, since our means are modest, has been to simply cover the costs of our bandwidth and servers. I was really, really surprised myself when the ads that appeared were for marketers. I tried initially to use the AdSense interface in order to block them. If you haven't used it, the way AdSense works is you have to list advertisers one at a time by their URL. There is no way to block an entire category. Unfortunately, enough bulk mailers are using Google's ads that they just kept appearing. I was about to pull the ads from the pages entirely when one of our developers -- who's a lot smarter than I am -- sent me an email saying: "You know, this is sort of a sweet justice. The bulk mailers are paying to have their ads listed on our site. It's certainly an efficient way to transfer the wealth from the spam community to the anti-spam community. Talk about hitting spammers in their pockets!" That's clever, I thought. While I'm not ready to say that everyone advertising there is a "spammer" (I don't want to get sued, or get the Google lawyers coming after me for violating the terms of service somehow) the reasoning above resonated and I (so far) decided to leave the ads up. To that end any page where an ad appears we've now added a disclaimer to the bottom. And there's a paragraph in the FAQ about the ads that appear. You can check it out here: http://www.projecthoneypot.org/faq.php#e I'm having second thoughts seeing that there's skepticism in the anti-spam community. I'd love your feedback. If people are adamant we should pull down the ads then I definitely will. Otherwise, again, seems like sweet justice. As far as our "consulting," the people who started Unspam, myself included, are attorneys by trade. We are occasionally -- although rarely -- asked to speak at conferences to talk about the legal risk to companies and individuals that send unsolicited commercial email. That is the extent of our "consulting" practice. I, for example, spoke at Anne Mitchell's ISIPP conference in July and the majority of audience members were bulk mailers. I believe you can actually listen to a copy of my speech from the ISIPP website (http://www.isipp.org/). I was invited by the ITU, a branch of the UN, to speak about why anti-spam laws have failed in Geneva, Switzerland a few months ago. There are several other similar speeches online. For example, you can see a whole video at: http://otel3.uis.edu/impatica/kmill2/Summit.htm Click Lunch Speaker. Or, maybe most appropriately, I think there's video floating around from last year's MIT SpamConference where I was a speaker again and talked about the initial ideas that formed the basis for Project Honey Pot.... how, currently, spammers were most vulnerable at the beginning of the "spam cycle," the point at which they are gathering email addresses, but no one was focusing on that. I'm also told that the video from CEAS where I spoke about what we're trying to do with the Project will be available soon through the CEAS website (http://www.ceas.cc/). Watching my talks, you may or may not agree with everything I had to say, but I think it's pretty clear we're not spammers or in any way in support of spammers (or bulk mailers, or list brokers). A couple of things I think you already know, but maybe it'd be good for the SURBL list to hear. First, we have never taken money from or been hired to consult with any spammer, harvester, bulk mailer, list broker, or ISP. (If our business were primarily consulting, we'd be fairly pathetic failures.) We started Project Honey Pot in order to help governments and individuals investigate, understand, and prosecute the spammers. We saw a problem -- that no one was tracking the entire spam cycle -- and are in the process of trying to solve it. One of the things we realized we could do once we had that infrastructure in place was assist other people in the anti-spam fight. We've already pledged to make the corpus of spam we receive available to anti-spam authors. And, as I've told you, we will turn over the complete list of URLs from the messages that we receive to the SURBL and potentially other open source RBLs. The point that has been made on the list that spammers will adjust and I'm sure that is true. While today I think the number of IP addresses used for spamming is small, over time more harvesters will use proxies and other tools to obscure their identities. In our initial tests we observed at least a few that appeared to already be doing that. That's not a reason to not do this now, at worst it's just an indictment that we're wasting our time. I don't agree with that and think the Project will prove useful even as spammers adjust to it. But it should be said that I have never believed that we would make much, if any, dent in the overall volume of spam. All I think is that we have a chance to gather a lot more data on the behavior of spammers, to answer some key questions, and hopefully set the stage for someone a lot more clever than me to come up with the idea that will be the final nail in spam's coffin. I just got a call from Eric Langheinrich, one of the people developers behind the software that makes Project Honey Pot possible, about a bug we're trying to track down and fix in the registration process. I told him people were saying we looked "too corporate." He started laughing and didn't stop until he finally said, "Wow, if they only knew! That's what you get for making a pretty website and including all that legal mumbo jumbo." Maybe that's our sin, but does seem like strange reasoning to say that we must be on the side of the spammers because our site is pretty.... So, with all that, I encourage anyone who wants to sign up to do so; we'd love to have as many website participating as possible. You can do so at: http://www.projecthoneypot.org/ It's hard for us to prove that we're going to do what we promise because we've only been open for 3 days and, to be honest, have only received one spam message so far. (They're start flooding in soon. Our initial tests show that on average there's about 1 week between harvesting and the first messages to arrive.) If you're skeptical of our intent then I just ask that you give us a chance and wait and see how we behave. Thanks to everyone who's donated MX entries and installed honey pots. In three days with no publicity other than than emails sent out to friends of ours about the launch we're up to about 50 installed honey pots and over 100 donated MXs. That's more successful than we could have ever hoped. If anyone has a question, you're welcome to email or call me directly and I'd be happy to do what I can to answer it. Keep fighting the good fight! Matthew Prince CEO, Unspam, LLC Adjunct Professor of Law John Marshall Law School 312.543.3046 (direct) phpot-surbl(a)matthew.unspam.com

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