SV: [SURBL-Discuss] Problems installing SPAMCOP_URI - Make test e
jeffc at surbl.org
Sat May 29 23:17:48 CEST 2004
On Saturday, May 29, 2004, 8:30:21 PM, John Andersen wrote:
> On Friday 28 May 2004 22:39, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> On Friday, May 28, 2004, 11:03:55 PM, John Andersen wrote:
>> > On Friday 28 May 2004 00:43, Martin Lyberg wrote:
>> >> Hi Eric,
>> >> Thanks for all help, that seem to solve my problem. SPAMCOP_URI is now
>> >> installed and im getting loads of hit on the SURBL-lists :)
>> >> Thank you!
>> >> / Martin
>> > Well It didn't help me. :-(
>> > In spite of getting no errors while installing SA and SpamCopURI-0.18
>> > (and each since SpamCopURI-0.14) I have never yet seen a SpamCop
>> > or surbl tag in my spam.
>> >>From everything I can see it should be working.
>> > Now at work, where I am running a virgin 2.63 I do see SpamCop
>> > flags on mail.
>> > Where do I start looking for bugs?
>> > Note: My bays and anti-drug are working great. Lint shows
>> > no complaints.
>> Checking the obvious first: do you have a score set up on the
>> other system, as in:
>> score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 3.0
> Now I'm confused as to which machine you refer... ;-)
> The system that has never shown a SPAMCOP_URI_RBL does have
> that line, the one at work just shows spamcop occasionally, per
> this score:
> score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 1.1
Aha, eemember that bl.spamcop.net and sc.surbl.org are
not the same thing. :-) The former is SpamCop's RBL
of mail source addresses (sending IPs, etc.), whereas
sc.surbl.org is derived from Spamvertised sites reported
in message bodies. The two are not related other than
using SpamCop reports for source data. bl uses header
info while sc.surbl.org uses message body URI info.
The score you mention is for the bl, and not a SURBL.
More information about the Discuss