You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Sean Doherty <se...@copperfasten.com> on 2004/07/09 12:10:24 UTC
SURBLs and skip_rbl_checks
Hi there,
>>From testing my local SpamAssassin 2.63 installation here I've
discovered that SURBL tests are still performed even if skip_rbl_checks
is set to 1 in my local.cf file. Shouldn't the SURBL's honour this
parameter, or is this by design? Is there another parameter that will
(temporarily) disable the SURBL tests - other than assigning a score of
0 to those tests?
Regards,
- Sean
Re: SURBLs and skip_rbl_checks
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Friday, July 16, 2004, 4:17:33 AM, John Wilcock wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 04:09:26 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> Chris' answer is reasonable that the 3.0 code hopefully may
>> treat SURBLs like other RBLs in that skip_rbl_checks may work
>> as expected. Reading the source code would probably reveal
>> this if so.
> I would assume that it is not too late to get this corrected in 3.0
> final. Any 3.0-pre users care to check, and file a bugzilla report if
> necessary?
The lack of response to skip_rbl_checks was cited for SpamCopURI
which is a 2.63 program. We don't know whether it's broken in
3.0 but suspect not, assuming some generalized RBL code was used
to handle the RBLs in urirhsbl, etc.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SURBLs and skip_rbl_checks
Posted by John Wilcock <jo...@tradoc.fr>.
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 04:09:26 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
> Chris' answer is reasonable that the 3.0 code hopefully may
> treat SURBLs like other RBLs in that skip_rbl_checks may work
> as expected. Reading the source code would probably reveal
> this if so.
I would assume that it is not too late to get this corrected in 3.0
final. Any 3.0-pre users care to check, and file a bugzilla report if
necessary?
John.
--
-- Over 2400 webcams from ski resorts around the world - www.snoweye.com
-- Translate your technical documents and web pages - www.tradoc.fr
Re: SURBLs and skip_rbl_checks
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Monday, July 12, 2004, 2:48:10 AM, Sean Doherty wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 19:50, Fred wrote:
>> For a test to be considered a net test, it needs to have a tflag set to net.
>> For your surbl rules, they should all have:
>> tflags SURBL_WHATEVER net
>> This will force them to be skipped like you want.
> Thanks for the answer Fred.
> However these tests still get run when skip_rbl_checks = 1;
> even if the tflags 'net' flag is set.
> The tests *do* get skipped if I specify the spamassassin -L
> flag (local tests only).
> After a bit more digging I found that the spamCop-uri code
> doesn't check the skip_rbl_checks settings as is done for
> other rbl tests. If this is by design or not is a question
> for the spamcop-uri developers.
That's probably a question for the spamcopuri author Eric Kolve,
though a partial hedge is that we tend not to think of SURBLs
in quite the same way as other RBLs since the usage is fairly
different. (Two other uses of RBLs are more common: match
sender IP addresses or domains in message headers or match
resolved URI IP addresses in message bodies.)
Chris' answer is reasonable that the 3.0 code hopefully may
treat SURBLs like other RBLs in that skip_rbl_checks may work
as expected. Reading the source code would probably reveal
this if so.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SURBLs and skip_rbl_checks
Posted by Sean Doherty <se...@copperfasten.com>.
On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 19:50, Fred wrote:
> For a test to be considered a net test, it needs to have a tflag set to net.
> For your surbl rules, they should all have:
> tflags SURBL_WHATEVER net
> This will force them to be skipped like you want.
Thanks for the answer Fred.
However these tests still get run when skip_rbl_checks = 1;
even if the tflags 'net' flag is set.
The tests *do* get skipped if I specify the spamassassin -L
flag (local tests only).
After a bit more digging I found that the spamCop-uri code
doesn't check the skip_rbl_checks settings as is done for
other rbl tests. If this is by design or not is a question
for the spamcop-uri developers.
Regards,
- Sean
Re: SURBLs and skip_rbl_checks
Posted by Fred <sp...@freddyt.com>.
Sean Doherty wrote:
> Hi there,
>
>> From testing my local SpamAssassin 2.63 installation here I've
> discovered that SURBL tests are still performed even if
> skip_rbl_checks is set to 1 in my local.cf file. Shouldn't the
> SURBL's honour this parameter, or is this by design? Is there another
> parameter that will (temporarily) disable the SURBL tests - other
> than assigning a score of 0 to those tests?
>
Hello,
For a test to be considered a net test, it needs to have a tflag set to net.
For your surbl rules, they should all have:
tflags SURBL_WHATEVER net
This will force them to be skipped like you want.
Fred