Hi, I'm in the progress of upgrading SA from 2.63 to 2.64 and SpamCopURI from 0.19 to 0.22.
During make test of SA I get these during each t/rule_tests:
t/rule_tests................ok 61/62Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, rule WS_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 6, near "} }"
I am aware that there was a discussion on the surbl list about this a few months ago, where someone said it could be caused by two Conf.pm's. However, I only have the one in /local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm and the two in the 2.64 distribution: the original ./lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm and the make-generated ./blib/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm
The errors didn't go away after installing SpamCopURI 0.22. I still haven't dared install SA.
This is the relevant entry in local.cf: # Domain blacklists uri WS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('ws.surbl.org','127.0.0.2') describe WS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in sa-blacklist tflags WS_URI_RBL net score WS_URI_RBL 3.0
And this is from spamcop_uri.cf: uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('sc.surbl.org','127.0.0.2') describe SPAMCOP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in spamcop database at sc.surbl.org tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL net score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 3.0
So, what is causing the test errors? Can I safely ignore them, or will my RBL's stop working if I upgrade?
I had hoped for a quick upgrade from 2.63 to 2.64 due to warnings about DOS (and the last few days our mailserver actually went out of memory twice, so it could be that spammers have started actually using this DOS)...
-Frank.
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 1:40:05 AM, Frank Johansen wrote:
Hi, I'm in the progress of upgrading SA from 2.63 to 2.64 and SpamCopURI from 0.19 to 0.22.
The syntax for the SpamCopURI 0.22 rules is new to reflect use of the combined list multi.surbl.org, so please update them to look like these. Also please add two lists, AB and JP, to the 0.22 configs:
uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+2') describe SPAMCOP_URI_RBL Has URI in SC at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL net
uri WS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+4') describe WS_URI_RBL Has URI in WS at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags WS_URI_RBL net
uri PH_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+8') describe PH_URI_RBL Has URI in PH at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags PH_URI_RBL net
uri OB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+16') describe OB_URI_RBL Has URI in OB at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags OB_URI_RBL net
uri AB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+32') describe AB_URI_RBL Has URI in AB at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags AB_URI_RBL net
uri JP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+64') describe JP_URI_RBL Has URI in JP at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags JP_URI_RBL net
score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 4.0 score WS_URI_RBL 1.5 score PH_URI_RBL 3.0 score OB_URI_RBL 2.2 score AB_URI_RBL 3.0 score JP_URI_RBL 2.5
Please remove any old rules referring to lists other than multi.surbl.org (i.e. sc.surbl.org, ws.surbl.org should no longer be used since they're in multi now).
Hope this helps,
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Thanks. I did the changes you illustrated below (into spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf). The "make test" errors went away, so I went ahead and did "make install" of SpamAssassin 2.64, as well as a reinstall of SpamCopURI-0.22 (just in case). I also removed the old override in local.cf and skip_rbl_checks is still set to 0.
Unfortunatedly I don't get hits on RBL checks anymore. I verified this by forwarding a mail with a verified listed domain (in ws.surbl.org and multi.surbl.org). I'm not using spamc/spamd. (And all the non-RBL checks still work fine.)
Any ideas on how I go about figuring out why RBL checks turned themselves off on the upgrade? How can I get any kind of debug log?
-Frank.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 1:40:05 AM, Frank Johansen wrote:
Hi, I'm in the progress of upgrading SA from 2.63 to 2.64 and SpamCopURI from 0.19 to 0.22.
The syntax for the SpamCopURI 0.22 rules is new to reflect use of the combined list multi.surbl.org, so please update them to look like these. Also please add two lists, AB and JP, to the 0.22 configs:
uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+2') describe SPAMCOP_URI_RBL Has URI in SC at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL net
uri WS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+4') describe WS_URI_RBL Has URI in WS at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags WS_URI_RBL net
uri PH_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+8') describe PH_URI_RBL Has URI in PH at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags PH_URI_RBL net
uri OB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+16') describe OB_URI_RBL Has URI in OB at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags OB_URI_RBL net
uri AB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+32') describe AB_URI_RBL Has URI in AB at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags AB_URI_RBL net
uri JP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+64') describe JP_URI_RBL Has URI in JP at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html tflags JP_URI_RBL net
score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 4.0 score WS_URI_RBL 1.5 score PH_URI_RBL 3.0 score OB_URI_RBL 2.2 score AB_URI_RBL 3.0 score JP_URI_RBL 2.5
Please remove any old rules referring to lists other than multi.surbl.org (i.e. sc.surbl.org, ws.surbl.org should no longer be used since they're in multi now).
Hope this helps,
Jeff C.
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Sorry for being a bit quick with my last mail. I got it to work now, was just an erroneously newline that got into the rules files when I cut & pasted.
-Frank.
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 8:36:21 AM, Frank Johansen wrote:
Sorry for being a bit quick with my last mail. I got it to work now, was just an erroneously newline that got into the rules files when I cut & pasted.
Yes, I should have mentioned those rules are on three lines and one of the lines is pretty long and can appear to wrap where in fact they don't wrap. Glad to hear things are working for you!
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Frank Tore Johansen wrote:
Unfortunatedly I don't get hits on RBL checks anymore. I verified this by forwarding a mail with a verified listed domain (in ws.surbl.org and multi.surbl.org). I'm not using spamc/spamd. (And all the non-RBL checks still work fine.)
Which version of Net::DNS do you have?
Any ideas on how I go about figuring out why RBL checks turned themselves off on the upgrade? How can I get any kind of debug log?
run spamassassin --lint -D and pay close attention to the output. If DNS is working this output will tell you this. If it's not working, this will tell you that too! It might even tell you what you need to do to get it working.
I would have to recommend upgrading to 3.0.1 and join the bandwagon, most of us are really happy with the changes.
Frederic Tarasevicius Internet Information Services, Inc. http://www.i-is.com/ 810-794-4400 mailto:info@i-is.com
-
Frank Tore Johansen -
Fred -
Jeff Chan