On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:03:19PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Saturday, July 31, 2004, 10:49:03 PM, Eric Kolve wrote:
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)
--eric
Thanks Eric. A couple suggestions:
- Please make a default limit to the number of URIs checked per
message. urirhssub and urirhsbl have limits of 20 randomly chosen I believe. That may be too low, but I believe it's important to have some limit to cap DNS traffic to some reasonable level. IOW the parameter is a great idea, but we probably should set it. :-)
I agree, though I didn't really want to break the way it worked for existing users. I am fine with doing 20 random, though I would like to here from others on the list what they think it ought to be by default.
- Network/Number looks like the syntax for CIDR notation;
something like 127.0.0.0+2 might be less potentially confusing.
I was kind of worried it might cause confusion, but I figured I would just go with it... I like your syntax more and I will probably use that in the next release.
--eric
Jeff C.
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss