[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: consensus list?

Rich Graves rcgraves at brandeis.edu
Fri Nov 12 16:42:24 CET 2004


Jeff Chan wrote:

> The idea is to have a "golden" list that is so accurate
> (for spams it does identify) and has so few FPs that
> it would be safe to block outright at the MTA level,
> for example.
> 
> An MTA milter or plugin probably can't determine that
> from multi alone (i.e. looking at all the lists), so I'm
> wondering if we can create a list for that purpose out
> of the existing lists.

SpamAssassin does have "meta" rules. Look at NIGERIAN_BODY4 or
UPPERCASE_75_100 in 20_meta_tests.cf.

meta SURBL_3 (URIBL_JP_SURBL + URIBL_AB_SURBL + URIBL_PH_SURBL + 
              URIBL_SC_SURBL + URIBL_WS_SURBL + URIBL_OB_SURBL) > 2
describe SURBL_3 Contains URIs in at least 3 blacklists
score SURBL_3 3

True, that would also catch messages with one URI in JP, a different URI in 
AB, a third URI in OB, and no actual overlap, but that's not very likely...
-- 
Rich Graves <rcgraves at brandeis.edu>
UNet Systems Administrator



More information about the Discuss mailing list