[SURBL-Discuss] Re: [SURBL-Announce] ANNOUNCE: Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI 0.20

[Eric Kolve]

On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:03:19PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2004, 10:49:03 PM, Eric Kolve wrote:
> >  Just released SpamCopURI 0.20. Biggest change is support for multi.surbl.org. 
> >  Let me know if you see anything strange.  See the change notes below
> >  for what you need to do for your config.
> 
> > 0.20 Sat Jul 31 22:02:20 PDT 2004
> >   - adding max url config param to limit number of URLs checked 
> >     in an email.  Usage (place into .cf file):
> >       spamcop_uri_limit 50
> >     Default is unlimited.
>   
> >   - adding support for multi.surbl.org / bitmasked results.  
> >     query results are cached on a per msg basis to prevent additional
> >     lookups.
> 
> >     Modify your configuration to look like the following for sc.surbl.org:
> 
> >      uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL           eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/2')
> >      describe SPAMCOP_URI_RBL      URI's domain appears in spamcop database at sc.surbl.org
> >      tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL     net
> 
> >     ws.surbl.org would look like this:
> 
> >       uri WS_URI_RBL           eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/4')
> >       describe WS_URI_RBL      URI's domain appears in ws database at ws.surbl.org
> >       tflags WS_URI_RBL       net
> 
> >   - Removed configuration params: spamcop_uri_src 
> >     and spamcop_uri_path since
> >     these should never be used anymore.
> 
> >   - added cleanup for hosts that come in with a dot in front of
> >     of the host (e.g. http://.spammy-site.org)
> 
> >  http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamcopuri/
>  
>  
> >  --eric
> 
> Thanks Eric.  A couple suggestions:
> 
> 1.  Please make a default limit to the number of URIs checked per
> message.  urirhssub and urirhsbl have limits of 20 randomly
> chosen I believe.  That may be too low, but I believe it's
> important to have some limit to cap DNS traffic to some
> reasonable level.  IOW the parameter is a great idea, but we
> probably should set it.  :-)

I agree, though I didn't really want to break the way it worked
for existing users.  I am fine with doing 20 random, though
I would like to here from others on the list what they think
it ought to be by default.

> 
> 2.  Network/Number looks like the syntax for CIDR notation;
> something like 127.0.0.0+2 might be less potentially confusing.

I was kind of worried it might cause confusion, but I figured
I would just go with it...  I like your syntax more and I will 
probably use that in the next release.

--eric

> 
> Jeff C.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.surbl.org
> http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss