Hi Eric,
Thanks for all help, that seem to solve my problem. SPAMCOP_URI is now installed and im getting loads of hit on the SURBL-lists :)
Thank you!
/ Martin
: -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- : Från: Eric Kolve [mailto:ekolve@comcast.net] : Skickat: den 28 maj 2004 01:20 : Till: Martin Lyberg : Kopia: 'SURBL Discussion list ' : Ämne: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Problems installing SPAMCOP_URI - : Make test e rror : : : On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 10:09:14PM +0200, Martin Lyberg wrote: : > Hi Eric, : > : > That is correct, if this is the message you mean? : > : > perl Makefile.PL : > # SAPATH /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0 : > # installsitelib /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0 : > # INSTALLDIRS site : > Warning: prerequisite URI 1.28 not found. We have 1.21. : > Writing Makefile for Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI : > : > Which URI package do i need to download through CPAN in this case? : Install this package: : : http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/G/GA/GAAS/URI-1.30.tar.gz : : : --eric : : : > : > Thanks in advance : > : > / Martin : > : > -----Original Message----- : > From: Eric Kolve : > To: SURBL Discussion list : > Sent: 5/27/2004 6:34 PM : > Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Problems installing SPAMCOP_URI - Make : > test e rror : > : > You need the URI package from CPAN. You should have received : > a warning when you attempted to install (if not let me know). : > : > --eric : > : > : > On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 02:52:28PM +0200, Martin Lyberg wrote: : > > Hi! : > > : > > I solved the problem by this thread: : > > : > > http://lists.surbl.org/pipermail/discuss/2004-May/000522.html : > > : > > But now i can't get through 'make test'. This gives me the : > > following: : > > : > > make test : > > : > > ---snip--- : > > : > > Failed 9/9 tests, 0.00% okay : > > t/whitelist........Can't locate URI/QueryParam.pm in @INC (@INC : > contains: : > > /root/Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.16/blib/lib : > > /root/Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.16/blib/arch : > > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0 : > > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0 : > > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl : > > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0 : > > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl : > > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0 . : > > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0 : > > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl : > > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl : > > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0 .) : > at : > > : > : /root/Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.16/blib/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Spa : > mC : > opUR : > > I.pm line 5. : > > BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at : > > : > : /root/Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.16/blib/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Spa : > mC : > opUR : > > I.pm line 5. : > > Compilation failed in require at t/whitelist.t line 6. BEGIN : > > failed--compilation aborted at t/whitelist.t line 6. # Looks like : > > your test died before it could output anything. : > > t/whitelist........dubious : > > : > > Test returned status 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) : > > DIED. FAILED tests 1-6 : > > Failed 6/6 tests, 0.00% okay : > > Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed : > > : > : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- : > -- : > ---- : > > --- : > > t/blacklist.t 2 512 4 4 100.00% 1-4 : > > t/dnsrbl.t 2 512 6 6 100.00% 1-6 : > > t/extract_urls.t 2 512 15 15 100.00% 1-15 : > > t/mailto.t 2 512 1 1 100.00% 1 : > > t/open_redirect.t 2 512 5 5 100.00% 1-5 : > > t/spamcopuri.t 2 512 9 9 100.00% 1-9 : > > t/whitelist.t 2 512 6 6 100.00% 1-6 : > > Failed 7/7 test scripts, 0.00% okay. 46/46 subtests failed, 0.00% : > okay. : > > make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 2 : > > : > > Any solution to this problem? Just before i did upgrade Net::DNS : > through : > > CPAN. : > > : > > Thank you. : > > : > > / Martin : > > : > > : > > : > > : -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- : > > : Från: Eric Kolve [mailto:ekolve@comcast.net] : > > : Skickat: den 27 maj 2004 14:11 : > > : Till: SURBL Discussion list : > > : Ämne: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Problems installing SPAMCOP_URI : > > : : > > : : > > : On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 01:44:02PM +0200, Martin Lyberg wrote: : > > : > : Hi : > > : > : : > > : > : I've been reading alot about SURBL in SA-mailinglist, now : > > : > : i've decided to give it a try. But im having trouble : > > : > : installing SpamcopUri. : > > : > : : > > : > : I have the following system: RH9, Postfix, SA 2.63 : > > : > : : > > : > : I get the following: : > > : > : : > > : > : Perl Makefile.pl : > > : > : : > > : > : Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin.pm in @INC (@INC contains: : > > : > : /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > : > : /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0 : > > : > : /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > : > : /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl : > > : > : /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > : > : /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl : > > : > : /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi : > > : > : /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0 .) at Makefile.PL line 3. BEGIN : > > : > : failed--compilation aborted at Makefile.PL line 3. : > > : > : : > > : > : What is wrong here? : > > : : > > : It looks like 'Perl' (was that really what was executed) : > > : couldn't find Mail::SpamAssassin. Do you know where it's : > > : installed? This appears to be an issue with the @INC. : > > : : > > : : > > : --eric : > > : : > > : : > > : > : > > : > Does anyone know a solution to this problem? Is there : any easy : > > : > solution? : > > : > : > > : > Thanks in advance : > > : > : > > : > / Martin : > > : > _______________________________________________ : > > : > Discuss mailing list : > > : > Discuss@lists.surbl.org : > > : > http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss : > > : _______________________________________________ : > > : Discuss mailing list : > > : Discuss@lists.surbl.org : > > : http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss : > > : : > > : > > _______________________________________________ : > > Discuss mailing list : > > Discuss@lists.surbl.org : > > http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss : > : > _______________________________________________ : > Discuss mailing list : > Discuss@lists.surbl.org : > http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss :
On Friday 28 May 2004 00:43, Martin Lyberg wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for all help, that seem to solve my problem. SPAMCOP_URI is now installed and im getting loads of hit on the SURBL-lists :)
Thank you!
/ Martin
Well It didn't help me. :-( In spite of getting no errors while installing SA and SpamCopURI-0.18 (and each since SpamCopURI-0.14) I have never yet seen a SpamCop or surbl tag in my spam.
From everything I can see it should be working.
Now at work, where I am running a virgin 2.63 I do see SpamCop flags on mail.
Where do I start looking for bugs?
Note: My bays and anti-drug are working great. Lint shows no complaints.
John Andersen wrote:
Well It didn't help me. :-( In spite of getting no errors while installing SA and SpamCopURI-0.18 (and each since SpamCopURI-0.14) I have never yet seen a SpamCop or surbl tag in my spam.
Are you logging spamassassin? When I first installed SpamCopURI I didn't see any hits either, but noticed this in my spamd logs:
@4000000040ae2d661a10e3c4 (syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:"
It ended up being that SpamAssassin couldn't load the right .pm's.
If you look at the INSTALL file in the source, you'll see a section regarding the rules not being hit, I followed the steps listed there and then it started working.
Regards,
Joe Boyce System Administrator - InterStar, Inc jboyce@shasta.com
On Friday, May 28, 2004, 11:03:55 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 28 May 2004 00:43, Martin Lyberg wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for all help, that seem to solve my problem. SPAMCOP_URI is now installed and im getting loads of hit on the SURBL-lists :)
Thank you!
/ Martin
Well It didn't help me. :-( In spite of getting no errors while installing SA and SpamCopURI-0.18 (and each since SpamCopURI-0.14) I have never yet seen a SpamCop or surbl tag in my spam.
From everything I can see it should be working.
Now at work, where I am running a virgin 2.63 I do see SpamCop flags on mail.
Where do I start looking for bugs?
Note: My bays and anti-drug are working great. Lint shows no complaints.
Checking the obvious first: do you have a score set up on the other system, as in:
score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 3.0
Jeff C.
On Friday 28 May 2004 22:39, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Friday, May 28, 2004, 11:03:55 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 28 May 2004 00:43, Martin Lyberg wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for all help, that seem to solve my problem. SPAMCOP_URI is now installed and im getting loads of hit on the SURBL-lists :)
Thank you!
/ Martin
Well It didn't help me. :-( In spite of getting no errors while installing SA and SpamCopURI-0.18 (and each since SpamCopURI-0.14) I have never yet seen a SpamCop or surbl tag in my spam.
From everything I can see it should be working.
Now at work, where I am running a virgin 2.63 I do see SpamCop flags on mail.
Where do I start looking for bugs?
Note: My bays and anti-drug are working great. Lint shows no complaints.
Checking the obvious first: do you have a score set up on the other system, as in:
score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 3.0
Now I'm confused as to which machine you refer... ;-)
The system that has never shown a SPAMCOP_URI_RBL does have that line, the one at work just shows spamcop occasionally, per this score: score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 1.1
On Saturday, May 29, 2004, 8:30:21 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 28 May 2004 22:39, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Friday, May 28, 2004, 11:03:55 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 28 May 2004 00:43, Martin Lyberg wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for all help, that seem to solve my problem. SPAMCOP_URI is now installed and im getting loads of hit on the SURBL-lists :)
Thank you!
/ Martin
Well It didn't help me. :-( In spite of getting no errors while installing SA and SpamCopURI-0.18 (and each since SpamCopURI-0.14) I have never yet seen a SpamCop or surbl tag in my spam.
From everything I can see it should be working.
Now at work, where I am running a virgin 2.63 I do see SpamCop flags on mail.
Where do I start looking for bugs?
Note: My bays and anti-drug are working great. Lint shows no complaints.
Checking the obvious first: do you have a score set up on the other system, as in:
score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 3.0
Now I'm confused as to which machine you refer... ;-)
The system that has never shown a SPAMCOP_URI_RBL does have that line, the one at work just shows spamcop occasionally, per this score: score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 1.1
Aha, eemember that bl.spamcop.net and sc.surbl.org are not the same thing. :-) The former is SpamCop's RBL of mail source addresses (sending IPs, etc.), whereas sc.surbl.org is derived from Spamvertised sites reported in message bodies. The two are not related other than using SpamCop reports for source data. bl uses header info while sc.surbl.org uses message body URI info.
The score you mention is for the bl, and not a SURBL.
Jeff C.
On Saturday 29 May 2004 21:17, Jeff Chan wrote:
Now I'm confused as to which machine you refer... ;-)
The system that has never shown a SPAMCOP_URI_RBL does have that line, the one at work just shows spamcop occasionally, per this score: score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 1.1
Aha, eemember that bl.spamcop.net and sc.surbl.org are not the same thing. :-) The former is SpamCop's RBL of mail source addresses (sending IPs, etc.), whereas sc.surbl.org is derived from Spamvertised sites reported in message bodies. The two are not related other than using SpamCop reports for source data. bl uses header info while sc.surbl.org uses message body URI info.
The score you mention is for the bl, and not a SURBL.
Jeff C.
Well, scratch that machine (the work one). That's the machine without surbl installed anyway.
The home one does have surbl, and I just scanned 120 spams to see if it flagged any of them, (nope). I'm going to reduce the score from 3.0 to .5 just on the chance SURBL is working and pushing all the spam over my /dev/nul limit in my procmail.
But so far still no hint that it work. Checked DNS (ok and ok with lint too) Restarted spamd Checked to make sure I moved the modules as explained under painfull install.
This is perl, v5.8.0 built for i586-linux-thread-multi. on Suse 8.2 smp.
John Andersen wrote
Well, scratch that machine (the work one). That's the machine without surbl installed anyway.
The home one does have surbl, and I just scanned 120 spams to see if it flagged any of them, (nope). I'm going to reduce the score from 3.0 to .5 just on the chance SURBL is working and pushing all the spam over my /dev/nul limit in my procmail.
But so far still no hint that it work. Checked DNS (ok and ok with lint too) Restarted spamd Checked to make sure I moved the modules as explained under painfull install.
I use:
/usr/sbin/spamassassin -D -t < message-file > output-file 2>&1
to see what spamassassin does to a particular message.
John
On Sunday 30 May 2004 21:56, John Fawcett wrote:
John Andersen wrote
Well, scratch that machine (the work one). That's the machine without surbl installed anyway.
The home one does have surbl, and I just scanned 120 spams to see if it flagged any of them, (nope). I'm going to reduce the score from 3.0 to .5 just on the chance SURBL is working and pushing all the spam over my /dev/nul limit in my procmail.
But so far still no hint that it work. Checked DNS (ok and ok with lint too) Restarted spamd Checked to make sure I moved the modules as explained under painfull install.
I use:
/usr/sbin/spamassassin -D -t < message-file > output-file 2>&1
to see what spamassassin does to a particular message.
John
Sheesh it dumps a lot of stuff...
But in the mix I saw this: ----------------
debug: querying for pjcinfo.com.sc.surbl.org
debug: Query failed for pjcinfo.com.sc.surbl.org debug: checking url: mailto://www.pjcinfo.com/epromo/unsubscribe.asp debug: checking url: http://www.pjcinfo.com/epromo/promo_freeinfo.asp debug: returning cached data : pjcinfo.com.sc.surbl.org -> ARRAY(0x947a894) -------------- That would imply that SURBL was active, No?
John Andersen wrote
On Sunday 30 May 2004 21:56, John Fawcett wrote:
I use:
/usr/sbin/spamassassin -D -t < message-file > output-file 2>&1
to see what spamassassin does to a particular message.
John
Sheesh it dumps a lot of stuff...
But in the mix I saw this: ----------------
debug: querying for pjcinfo.com.sc.surbl.org
debug: Query failed for pjcinfo.com.sc.surbl.org debug: checking url: mailto://www.pjcinfo.com/epromo/unsubscribe.asp debug: checking url: http://www.pjcinfo.com/epromo/promo_freeinfo.asp debug: returning cached data : pjcinfo.com.sc.surbl.org ->
ARRAY(0x947a894)
That would imply that SURBL was active, No?
That looks ok. If you use the other surbl lists there would also be queries for them. (pjcinfo.com.be.surbl.org, pjcinfo.com.ws.surbl.org)
I still find it surprising that none of your spam is getting flagged for being in sc.surbl.org / ws.surbl.org / be.surbl.org. In my case it is among the top indicators of spam.
The test you did above used a message that does not contain domains listed in sc.surbl.org Just to be sure, you might want to try it using one that is in sc.surbl.org. You could insert the following into the test message (with MUNGED removed) and check to see if you get a positive result this time.
http://surbl-org-permanent-test-pointMUNGED.com
John
On Sunday 30 May 2004 22:54, John Fawcett wrote:
debug: querying for pjcinfo.com.sc.surbl.org
debug: Query failed for pjcinfo.com.sc.surbl.org debug: checking url: mailto://www.pjcinfo.com/epromo/unsubscribe.asp debug: checking url: http://www.pjcinfo.com/epromo/promo_freeinfo.asp debug: returning cached data : pjcinfo.com.sc.surbl.org ->
ARRAY(0x947a894)
That would imply that SURBL was active, No?
That looks ok. If you use the other surbl lists there would also be queries for them. (pjcinfo.com.be.surbl.org, pjcinfo.com.ws.surbl.org)
I still find it surprising that none of your spam is getting flagged for being in sc.surbl.org / ws.surbl.org / be.surbl.org. In my case it is among the top indicators of spam.
The test you did above used a message that does not contain domains listed in sc.surbl.org Just to be sure, you might want to try it using one that is in sc.surbl.org. You could insert the following into the test message (with MUNGED removed) and check to see if you get a positive result this time.
Oh yeah, the de-MUNGED show up ---- ;-) 0.5 SPAMCOP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in spamcop database at sc.surbl.org [surbl-org-permanent-test-point.com is blacklisted in URI RBL at sc.surbl.org]
I'm going to add in the other surbl lists and try a few more tests. Thanks, I at least now know its working.
On Fri, 28 May 2004, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 28 May 2004 00:43, Martin Lyberg wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for all help, that seem to solve my problem. SPAMCOP_URI is now installed and im getting loads of hit on the SURBL-lists :)
Thank you!
/ Martin
Well It didn't help me. :-( In spite of getting no errors while installing SA and SpamCopURI-0.18 (and each since SpamCopURI-0.14) I have never yet seen a SpamCop or surbl tag in my spam.
Both the SpamCop & surbl tests depend upon DNS queries. Have you done a 'spamassassin --lint -D' and looked for the DNS checks being OK? Could be that your perl doesn't have the DNS module installed or your system fails to resolve the remote sites that SA uses to check your DNS and thus fails to activate it. Any chance that you're running spamd with network checks disabled? '-L'
On Saturday 29 May 2004 12:07, David B Funk wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 28 May 2004 00:43, Martin Lyberg wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for all help, that seem to solve my problem. SPAMCOP_URI is now installed and im getting loads of hit on the SURBL-lists :)
Thank you!
/ Martin
Well It didn't help me. :-( In spite of getting no errors while installing SA and SpamCopURI-0.18 (and each since SpamCopURI-0.14) I have never yet seen a SpamCop or surbl tag in my spam.
Both the SpamCop & surbl tests depend upon DNS queries. Have you done a 'spamassassin --lint -D' and looked for the DNS checks being OK? Could be that your perl doesn't have the DNS module installed or your system fails to resolve the remote sites that SA uses to check your DNS and thus fails to activate it. Any chance that you're running spamd with network checks disabled? '-L'
I think that's working Dave, here are the lines from lint...
debug: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes debug: trying (3) gwdg.de... debug: looking up MX for 'gwdg.de' debug: MX for 'gwdg.de' exists? 1 debug: MX lookup of gwdg.de succeeded => Dns available (set dns_available to hardcode) debug: is DNS available? 1 debug: all '*From' addrs: ignore@compiling.spamassassin.taint.org
I do get this from razor (after it successfully finds a couple of cloudmark servers... This error is well documented and one I need to get around to fixing, but I don't believe it is germain to the issue at hand:
razor2 check skipped: No such file or directory Insecure dependency in open while running with -T switch at /usr/lib/pe rl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Razor2/Client/Config.pm line 404, <GEN2> line 1.
-
David B Funk -
Jeff Chan -
Joe Boyce -
John Andersen -
John Fawcett -
Martin Lyberg