[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Bill Stearns' sa-blacklist available as SURBL: ws.surbl.org

[Bill Landry]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David B Funk" <dbfunk at engineering.uiowa.edu>


> Both two encodings are used by other DSBLs. The first one is an
> enumeration (used by Sorbs, NJABL, etc), the second one a bit-field
> ("set") (used by MAPS RBL+).
>
> The enumeration has the advantage of being simpler and covering
> more posibilities but is only single valued. (IE the match is for
> only one possible list).

That's not correct.  For example, one query as follows to Sorbs return
several result codes:

dig 91.119.193.81.dnsbl.sorbs.net

;; ANSWER SECTION:
91.119.193.81.dnsbl.sorbs.net. 172657 IN A      127.0.0.3
91.119.193.81.dnsbl.sorbs.net. 172657 IN A      127.0.0.6
91.119.193.81.dnsbl.sorbs.net. 172657 IN A      127.0.0.2

SA has several multi-response RBLs setup to post a single query and receive
multiple responses.  Here is a the above response handled by SA:

*SNIP*
Apr 22 09:24:19 gw1 amavis[28426]: (28426-10) SPAM-TAG, <xgcbued at aol.com> ->
<jtercek at pointshare.net>, Yes, hits=140.9 tagged_above=1.0 required=1.0
tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS, RCVD_IN_SORBS-HTTP, RCVD_IN_SORBS-SOCKS,
RCVD_IN_SORBS-SPAM

Note that SA reported that the message failed three Sorbs test, all from a
single DNS query.

Bill