SURBL was great when it was running. It made me wonder if I should even run any other RBL's at all?
This is off topic already but what is generally thought to have less overhead?
It would seem to be that RBLs would but their effectiveness have really dropped with the use of massive botnets.
Anyhow regarding my topic...
something has changed in the usage of the lists and so my false positives has jumped.
This is doug swallows plugin for Icewarp MerakMail. (the author has long since dropped support for this project)
http://clip.drlinky.com/149606
I have altered the scope to not include the header (from the surblg list I was told to) and also to not scan the ip addresses but to no avail.
I was getting false positives for test invites I was sending myself from linked in.
I believe it is the way counting is performed that is messing things up a bit. From the looks of it a count of 1 is rejected, but 1 is added to everything anyway surbl_multi_count += 1
Appreciate any information
Thank you
KieranMullen
Quoting kieran mullen kieranmullen@gmail.com:
SURBL was great when it was running. It made me wonder if I should even run any other RBL's at all?
Most people use Spamhaus in their MTAs.
This is off topic already but what is generally thought to have less overhead?
It would seem to be that RBLs would but their effectiveness have really dropped with the use of massive botnets.
Some RBLs do a pretty good job of detecting botnets. Use Spamhaus.
Anyhow regarding my topic...
something has changed in the usage of the lists and so my false positives has jumped.
Nothing has changed on the list side.
This is doug swallows plugin for Icewarp MerakMail. (the author has long since dropped support for this project)
http://clip.drlinky.com/149606
I have altered the scope to not include the header (from the surblg list I was told to) and also to not scan the ip addresses but to no avail.
I was getting false positives for test invites I was sending myself from linked in.
I believe it is the way counting is performed that is messing things up a bit. From the looks of it a count of 1 is rejected, but 1 is added to everything anyway surbl_multi_count += 1
Please provide an example and an explanation of what surbl_multi_count means.
Again nothing on the SURBL list side has changed.
Jeff C.
i too believe nothing has changed on the surbl side. as usuall is probably me. a copy of the code used is at http://clip.drlinky.com/149606
thank you
kieranmullen
On Feb 12, 2008 12:54 AM, Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org wrote:
Quoting kieran mullen kieranmullen@gmail.com:
SURBL was great when it was running. It made me wonder if I should even run any other RBL's at all?
Most people use Spamhaus in their MTAs.
This is off topic already but what is generally thought to have less overhead?
It would seem to be that RBLs would but their effectiveness have really dropped with the use of massive botnets.
Some RBLs do a pretty good job of detecting botnets. Use Spamhaus.
Anyhow regarding my topic...
something has changed in the usage of the lists and so my false positives has jumped.
Nothing has changed on the list side.
This is doug swallows plugin for Icewarp MerakMail. (the author has long since dropped support for this project)
http://clip.drlinky.com/149606
I have altered the scope to not include the header (from the surblg list I was told to) and also to not scan the ip addresses but to no avail.
I was getting false positives for test invites I was sending myself from linked in.
I believe it is the way counting is performed that is messing things up a bit. From the looks of it a count of 1 is rejected, but 1 is added to everything anyway surbl_multi_count += 1
Please provide an example and an explanation of what surbl_multi_count means.
Again nothing on the SURBL list side has changed.
Jeff C.
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-
Jeff Chan -
kieran mullen