On Thursday, September 23, 2004, 1:51:16 AM, Martin Martin wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
Please test the MailPolice Fraud list as Bill described earlier (copied below).
Which bitmask should i use for this list? Or does it work as written above? Below is an example of my spamcop_uri.cf file. Can you please confirm that the three lists below are correct?
uri AB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+32') describe AB_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in ab database at ab.surbl.org tflags AB_URI_RBL net score AB_URI_RBL 5.0
uri JP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+64') describe JP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in jp database at jp.surbl.org tflags JP_URI_RBL net score JP_URI_RBL 5.0
uri MP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com','127.0.0.2') describe MP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud list tflags MP_URI_RBL net score MP_URI_RBL 2.0
That's correct. fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com is not part of multi or even a SURBL at this point, so it has no bitmask. It's a separate, external list. If we like the data, we will add it into PH in multi.
ab.surbl.org is good to add, but jp doesn't exist until Monday. :-)
Also descriptions like:
URI's domain appears in http://www.surbl.org/lists.html#ab
would be better.
Jeff C.