Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1862 discussions

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Chris Santerre 25 Oct '04

25 Oct '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:18 PM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: 'Jeff Chan'; SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > > >On Friday, October 22, 2004, 11:00:56 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> I thought we had a discussion on this already? The list I >added has been in >> there for like 2 months. I went thru it. I do NOT use this >guys list nilly >> willy. I haven't updated that file in 2 months. I only took >his 100 recent >> changes, and went thru it and pulled a bunch out that were >in question. > >This was the most recent discussion I could find. It doesn't >seem to mention actually using the jayallen data in WS, though I >might have missed a message: > Fine. Removed. A known blog spammer host gets one FP and we remove then all. Done. --Chris

2 4

Fwd: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Non-SA URIBLs no longer hitting with SA 3.0.1
by Jeff Chan 24 Oct '04

24 Oct '04

This is a forwarded message From: Burnie <burnie(a)dod.no> To: users(a)spamassassin.apache.org Date: Sunday, October 24, 2004, 2:16:08 PM Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Non-SA URIBLs no longer hitting with SA 3.0.1 ===8<==============Original message text=============== "Bill Landry" <billl(a)pointshare.com> writes: > urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64 > header URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL') ^^^^^^ Change this to 'body' (Just found this myself. Thanks for the input) >From Changelog: --------- 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 --------- -- Bernt 'Burnie' Pettersen /// DoD#2345 NAF <E-mail:burnie@dod.no> /// <URL:http://burnie.sh/> Well, actually I couldn't find a better signature here..... ===8<===========End of original message text===========

2 1

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Non-SA URIBLs no longer hitting with SA 3.0.1
by Bill Landry 24 Oct '04

24 Oct '04

----- Original Message ----- From: "Burnie" <burnie(a)dod.no> > "Bill Landry" <billl(a)pointshare.com> writes: > > > urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64 > > header URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL') > ^^^^^^ > > Change this to 'body' > > (Just found this myself. Thanks for the input) > > >From Changelog: > --------- > 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 > --------- Thanks Burnie, that was it. I even saw this in the changelog file when I did the upgrade a couple of days ago, but totally forgot about it when trying to resolve this today. Bill

1 0

Re: Non-SA URIBLs no longer hitting with SA 3.0.1
by Raymond Dijkxhoorn 24 Oct '04

24 Oct '04

Hi! >> The first two are typically very heavy hitters for me, so to see no hits >> since the upgrade is strange. Is anyone else that has upgrade to SA 3.0.1 >> seeing the same results? > Make sure the plugin is loaded in init.pre. Also, try sending a test message > (see the SURBL web site or this list's recent archives for details) while > running SA in debug mode to confirm whether the checks are really being > skipped. They are, 100%, all other URIBL checks are just processed ok, ones that i have inside my local.cf are skipped. Bye, Raymond.

2 6

Re: Non-SA URIBLs no longer hitting with SA 3.0.1
by Bill Landry 24 Oct '04

24 Oct '04

----- Original Message ----- From: "Sahil Tandon" <sahil(a)hamla.org> > > The first two are typically very heavy hitters for me, so to see no hits > > since the upgrade is strange. Is anyone else that has upgrade to SA 3.0.1 > > seeing the same results? > > Make sure the plugin is loaded in init.pre. Also, try sending a test > message (see the SURBL web site or this list's recent archives for > details) while running SA in debug mode to confirm whether the checks > are really being skipped. All SA defined URIBL tests are working fine, it just the ones that I have defined personally in a uribl.cf file in /etc/mail/spamassassin that are not working. These all worked fine with all of the SA 3.0.0 release candidates and with the 3.0.0 release, however, they are not working now since the upgrade to SA 3.0.1. BTW, in my /etc/mail/spamassassin/init.pre: # URIDNSBL - look up URLs found in the message against several DNS # blocklists. # loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL I even tried renaming my file to urisbl.bak and adding them directly to the SA 25_uribl.cf file, and they still do not work. Very strange... Bill

2 1

Non-SA URIBLs no longer hitting with SA 3.0.1
by Bill Landry 24 Oct '04

24 Oct '04

The last hit I've seen from any of the following privately defined URIBL lists was Oct 22 21:09:04, which is when I upgraded to SA 3.0.1: ===== 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 listed in the JP SURBL blocklist tflags URIBL_JP_SURBL net score URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.0 urirhsbl URIBL_MP block.rhs.mailpolice.com. A header URIBL_MP eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_MP') describe URIBL_MP Contains a URL listed in the MP SURBL blocklist tflags URIBL_MP net score URIBL_MP 2.0 urirhsbl URIBL_UC uc.sasknow.com. A header URIBL_UC eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_UC') describe URIBL_UC Contains a URL listed in the UC SURBL blocklist tflags URIBL_UC net score URIBL_UC 0.5 ===== The first two are typically very heavy hitters for me, so to see no hits since the upgrade is strange. Is anyone else that has upgrade to SA 3.0.1 seeing the same results? Bill

2 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] SURBL meeting at Linuxworld expo in Boston?
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: William Stearns [mailto:wstearns@pobox.com] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 5:06 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] SURBL meeting at Linuxworld expo >in Boston? > > >Good afternoon, Justin, all, > >On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Justin Mason wrote: > >> Theo Van Dinter writes: >> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:43:56AM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote: >> > > LinuxWorldexpo.com is Feb 14-17 in Boston, MA. Any hope >of having a mini >> > > SURBL/SARE meeting? Just to meet face to face. >> > >> > There's (probably) also the Spam Conference at MIT in >January (it's always a >> > last minute thing). Hey, it was only -7 degrees last year... ;) >> >> It was bracing! seriously, that kind of weather is great fun >for a SoCal >> resident like myself. I'd almost forgotten what cold felt like ;) >> >> > I wasn't planning to goto LWE, but I'd be likely to swing >by to meet >> > folks if there's enough people going. >> >> I'd be unlikely to make it -- transcontinental trips aren't >so easy to get >> unless there's a spam-related conference at the other end :( > > Why don't we plan to meet before/after the spam conference >instead, then? > Cheers, Works for me. Are pants optional? --Chris

3 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Matthew Wilson 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

Folks, If I were a spammer monitoring this list's traffic (there have got to be some), I would buy up a bunch of domains that were registered a few years ago but expired, throw up a bunch of bogus "legitimate looking" content, send out a bunch of spam using those "legitimate" domain names, and then complain to Jeff et al. that SURBL is generating false positives. According to current policies, my sites would be whitelisted, "yay!". It's my opinion that you have to draw the line somewhere because of this, and hosting entities who don't have compliant AUPs or enforce their AUPs with any speed need to be listed somehow. Jeff, you really should consider creating a separate "semi-legitimate" list for entities such as greatnow.com, if only to appease those of us who don't necessarily keep often-updated private blacklists and whitelists for SURBL queries/hits. Thanks, Matthew Wilson. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Chan Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 1:29 PM To: SURBL Discuss Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com On Friday, October 22, 2004, 11:27:25 AM, Jeff Chan wrote: > There's a difference between removing the entire list and checking > them carefully before using them. > We can use the data if we check it first. Can you post or link the list so we can all see the data and comment on it? Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it." _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

4 4

SURBL meeting at Linuxworld expo in Boston?
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

I know its early, but if I don't schedule early, I may never get the chance to. LinuxWorldexpo.com is Feb 14-17 in Boston, MA. Any hope of having a mini SURBL/SARE meeting? Just to meet face to face. Chris Santerre System Admin and SARE Ninja http://www.rulesemporium.com http://www.surbl.org 'It is not the strongest of the species that survives, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.' Charles Darwin

6 6

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: jm(a)jmason.org [mailto:jm@jmason.org] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 3:49 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Cc: csanterre(a)merchantsoverseas.com >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >Matthew Wilson writes: >> Folks, >> >> If I were a spammer monitoring this list's traffic (there >have got to be >> some), I would buy up a bunch of domains that were registered a few >> years ago but expired, throw up a bunch of bogus "legitimate looking" >> content, > >yep, the google-spammers are doing that already. > >> send out a bunch of spam using those "legitimate" domain names, >> and then complain to Jeff et al. that SURBL is generating false >> positives. According to current policies, my sites would be >> whitelisted, "yay!". > >this is a possible problem, alright. But as far as I can see Jeff >has been saying to *check* the possible false positive domains, not >to just blindly whitelist them. And we do check them. Find that they have in the past, and currently host a BUNCH of spam. But they get one legit use. So they get whitelisted on WS, according to the policy. So I follow the policy of WS. Only choice is to submit this stuff to a list with a different policy. --Chris

1 0

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