[SURBL-Discuss] Please test MailPolice Fraud list

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Thu Sep 23 11:17:17 CEST 2004

On Thursday, September 23, 2004, 1:51:16 AM, Martin Martin wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:

>> Please test the MailPolice Fraud list as Bill described earlier
>> (copied below).

> Which bitmask should i use for this list? Or does it work as written
> above? Below is an example of my spamcop_uri.cf file. Can you please 
> confirm that the three lists below are correct?

> uri AB_URI_RBL 
> eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','')
> describe AB_URI_RBL             URI's domain appears in ab database at 
> ab.surbl.org
> tflags AB_URI_RBL net
> score AB_URI_RBL  5.0

> uri JP_URI_RBL 
> eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','')
> describe JP_URI_RBL             URI's domain appears in jp database at 
> jp.surbl.org
> tflags JP_URI_RBL net
> score JP_URI_RBL  5.0

> uri MP_URI_RBL 
> eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com','')
> describe MP_URI_RBL             URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud 
> list
> tflags MP_URI_RBL net
> score MP_URI_RBL 2.0

That's correct.  fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com is not part of multi
or even a SURBL at this point, so it has no bitmask.  It's a
separate, external list.  If we like the data, we will add it
into PH in multi.

ab.surbl.org is good to add, but jp doesn't exist until
Monday.  :-)

Also descriptions like:

  URI's domain appears in http://www.surbl.org/lists.html#ab

would be better.

Jeff C.

More information about the Discuss mailing list