[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','127.0.0.0+32')
> 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','127.0.0.0+64')
> 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','127.0.0.2')
> 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