Hi All,
For those of you hand-checking lists of domains (i.e., from submissions to SURBL lists, either for blocking or whitelisting): would a few of you mind running the new version (1.5) of GetURI (http://ry.ca/geturi/) on one or two of your domain lists?
Just export your list of domains to a text file (one domain per line), and run geturi something like so:
$ geturi --spamdomains=spamdomains.txt --age > domains.html
If you also have lists of domains that appear in ham, even better! Send those to --hamdomains=hamdomains.txt, and you can guard against FPs.
Alternatively, if you don't have the time to fiddle with GetURI yourself, then, for a limited time only, you can submit domain lists directly to my email address with "DOMAINS FOR GETURI" in the subject, and I'll run the report for you and post or email the output at your request.
I'm curious to know if this is the kind of output you're looking for, and if there'd be anything else that would be a big help to your efforts, without decreasing accuracy. What are you currently doing to hand-check?
My main goal is to reduce the effort required to *accurately* hand-check domains so we can focus on the quality of our submissions.
Thanks, - Ryan
Hi Ryan,
For those of you hand-checking lists of domains (i.e., from submissions to SURBL lists, either for blocking or whitelisting): would a few of you mind running the new version (1.5) of GetURI (http://ry.ca/geturi/) on one or two of your domain lists?
Just giving this a go, when running getuti I get the following error,
Can not open whitelist-domains at ./geturi line 841.
I have a whitelist-local, have just copied that to whitelist-domains and it appears to be a bit happier. Also can this tool read MBOX files?
Regards,
Joseph
Joseph Burford wrote to SURBL Discussion list:
Hi Ryan,
For those of you hand-checking lists of domains (i.e., from submissions to SURBL lists, either for blocking or whitelisting): would a few of you mind running the new version (1.5) of GetURI (http://ry.ca/geturi/) on one or two of your domain lists?
Just giving this a go, when running getuti I get the following error,
Can not open whitelist-domains at ./geturi line 841.
Ahh. You need to run the "getwhitelist" program to fetch the current whitelist from SURBL. Just noticed that wasn't in the "quick instructions" part of the web site, so I've updated that. Mea cupla. :-)
I have a whitelist-local, have just copied that to whitelist-domains and it appears to be a bit happier.
Also can this tool read MBOX files?
Not currently, but from the TODO in the documentation:
1. mbox support? For now, use any mbox-to-maildir converter. Google knows about several.
"I'm Feeling Lucky" button on Google came up with this:
http://perfectmaildir.home-dn.net/ "a 'Simple but Perfect' mbox to Maildir converter"
Still, I'll incorporate mbox support in the next version anyway.
Thanks for the feedback! - Ryan
Ryan,
whitelist from SURBL. Just noticed that wasn't in the "quick instructions" part of the web site, so I've updated that. Mea cupla. :-)
Okies, done that.
1. mbox support? For now, use any mbox-to-maildir converter. Google knows about several.
Support in the next versio sounds great. Anyway in the meantime I've converted a mbox to maildir, running geturi now gives me:
Can't locate object method "parse" via package "Mail::SpamAssassin" at ./geturi line 552.
Am running Spamassassin 2.63 installed via CPAN.
Regards,
Joseph
Joseph Burford wrote to SURBL Discussion list:
Ryan,
1. mbox support? For now, use any mbox-to-maildir converter. Google knows about several.Support in the next versio sounds great. Anyway in the meantime I've converted a mbox to maildir, running geturi now gives me:
Can't locate object method "parse" via package "Mail::SpamAssassin" at ./geturi line 552.
Am running Spamassassin 2.63 installed via CPAN.
GetURI uses the new SA 3.0 architecture. From "System Requirements" in the README:
System Requirements: ... - SpamAssassin 3.0 or later geturi takes advantage of the new API in SpamAssassin 3.0. The original version was written for 2.63, but I opted to replace the code in favour of SA3.0. If sufficient interest still exists, I may consider re-adding SA2.6x support.
I *think* I can back-port to support 2.6x without too much grief. At the very least, I could be writing a more descriptive error in that spot. I'll get back to you on that.
Would you be willing to help test?
This is now probably beyond the scope of surbl discuss, so please reply off-list.
- Ryan
-
Joseph Burford -
Ryan Thompson