On Friday, February 11, 2005, 3:38:04 PM, Chris Edwards wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Rob McEwen wrote:
| FP: 127.0.0.2 | | Should local-range (localhost) IP addresses ever be listed in SURBL?
Which particular SURBL do you think it's listed in ?
I think you're confusing SURBLs (which list domain names) with the SpamAssassin facility to resolve URLs to IP addresses and look up the regular DNSBLs.
Actually 127.0.0.2 is listed in all SURBLs as a test point, just like most other RBLs:
http://www.surbl.org/faq.html#testpoints
While SURBLs are mostly domain names, they do have a few IP addresses also:
http://www.surbl.org/usage.html
(That said, it would probably be slightly safer if we didn't list IP addresses. However, we're trying to match what hosts appear in spam, whether they have a host name ((qualified) domain name) or host number (IP address).)
The IP address 127.0.0.2 is listed in many regular DNSBLs, including the Spamhaus SBL, so, if you're using SA3 with the URIDNSBL plugin and factory rulesets then "URIBL_SBL" with trigger.
[...]
Of course, if this causes you problems, you can simply whitelist it with:
uridnsbl_skip_domain 127.0.0.2
Indeed that should only be a problem if one used URIs with that address, e.g.:
http://127.0.0.2-MUNGED/ (without the -MUNGED, of course)
which ought to be unlikely to appear in a message body....
Cheers,
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."