You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net> on 2005/10/02 06:57:01 UTC
[SARE] rules file updates
Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
been updated.
Of note: One rule which has been incorporated into SpamAssassin 3.1.0
has been moved to the new 70_sare_obfu_x31.cf file. Systems that are
remaining on 3.0.x or earlier should obtain this file. No need for
RDJ on this file, since it won't be changing.
Information about these rules files can be found at
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#obfu
Also, there will be an update to 70_sare_specific.cf in the next
couple of hours. Information can be found at
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#specific
If you use this file and don't have RDJ active, you'll want to pull a
new copy in a few hours.
Bob Menschel
Re: [SARE] rules file updates
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> >>Whitelist appears to be a newer file regardless of what the headers
> >>say. It includes more sites in its whitelist. It appears whitelist_rcvd
> >>is obsolete. It's not mentioned on the SARE Rules page.
> >
> > These were announced on the list about a week ago.
Whitelist_from_rcvd.cf
> > is NEW file.
>
> Great. Shouldn't the old one be removed?
No. Whitelist_from_rcvd is 3.10 ONLY. It tightens up some of the whitelist
rules by using syntax (or maybe a plugin, I forget) that is only avaiable in
3.1. As best I recall, mist of the normal whitelist is still applicable to
3.1 systems, and is the only one useable on 3.0.x and previous.
Loren
Re: [SARE] rules file updates
Posted by Cami <ca...@mweb.co.za>.
Loren Wilton wrote:
>>>Robert Menschel wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
>>>>been updated.
>>>
>>>Can someone mention whats the difference between:
>>>http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
>>>and
>>>http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
>>
>>Whitelist appears to be a newer file regardless of what the headers
>>say. It includes more sites in its whitelist. It appears whitelist_rcvd
>>is obsolete. It's not mentioned on the SARE Rules page.
>
> These were announced on the list about a week ago. Whitelist_from_rcvd.cf
> is NEW file.
Great. Shouldn't the old one be removed?
Cami
Re: [SARE] rules file updates
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "Loren Wilton" <lw...@earthlink.net>
>> > Robert Menschel wrote:
>> >> Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
>> >> been updated.
>> >
>> > Can someone mention whats the difference between:
>> > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
>> > and
>> > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
>>
>> Whitelist appears to be a newer file regardless of what the headers
>> say. It includes more sites in its whitelist. It appears whitelist_rcvd
>> is obsolete. It's not mentioned on the SARE Rules page.
>
> These were announced on the list about a week ago. Whitelist_from_rcvd.cf
> is NEW file.
I see it in the fine print. (That Rules page is getting hard to read.)
===8<---
70_sare_whitelist.cf and derivatives
Description: Whitelist directives used to whitelist newsletters and
mailing lists that are controlled/monitored to be free
of spam, but might occasioanlly be flagged as spam by
SpamAssassin because of "spammy" contents.
Created by: Bob Menschel, RMsa@menschel.net
License Type: Artistic/GPL dual
Status: Active *
Last update: 2005-09-24
Version: 01.00.06
Auto-update: Yes
RDJ usage: add "SARE_WHITELIST", "SARE_WHITELIST_SPF",
"SARE_WHITELIST_RCVD", or "SARE_WHITELIST_PRE30"
to TRUSTED_RULESETS (more info).
Available at: http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf.
This file is suitable for use by SpamAssassin version
3.0.x, or 3.1.0 or higher without network tests.
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
and
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_spf.cf.
These two files (new with version 01.00.06) are intended
for SpamAssassin version 3.1.0 or higher, with network and
SPF tests enabled. Any whitelist which can be validated
using SPF will be found in whitelist_spf.cf, and the
remainder are in whitelist_rcvd.cf.
Systems older than 3.1.0 and systems without network tests or
without SPF modules cannot use whitelist_spf.cf, and
therefore should use the primary file above.
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_pre30.cf.
The primary file (listed first above) includes in-line
commenting which is valid in SpamAssassin 3.0.0 and newer,
but wasn't valid in versions 2.5x or 2.6x. Systems with
versions of SpamAssassin older than 3.0.0 should instead
use this version of the file, which has those comment
lines removed.
Note: Please read the internal documentation. Note that since this
file contains whitelist_from_rcvd directives, and not regex-based
rules, this file or extracts from it could be used within an
individual's user_prefs file. Please send recommendations or
complaints to Bob Menschel, RMsa@menschel.net
Sample Results: Not available (have not been able to figure out how to
mass-check whitelist rules).
===8<---
{^_^}
Re: [SARE] rules file updates
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> > Robert Menschel wrote:
> >> Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
> >> been updated.
> >
> > Can someone mention whats the difference between:
> > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
> > and
> > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
>
> Whitelist appears to be a newer file regardless of what the headers
> say. It includes more sites in its whitelist. It appears whitelist_rcvd
> is obsolete. It's not mentioned on the SARE Rules page.
These were announced on the list about a week ago. Whitelist_from_rcvd.cf
is NEW file.
Loren
Re: [SARE] rules file updates
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "Cami" <ca...@mweb.co.za>
> Robert Menschel wrote:
>> Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
>> been updated.
>
> Can someone mention whats the difference between:
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
> and
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
Whitelist appears to be a newer file regardless of what the headers
say. It includes more sites in its whitelist. It appears whitelist_rcvd
is obsolete. It's not mentioned on the SARE Rules page.
{^_^}
Re: [SARE] rules file updates
Posted by Cami <ca...@mweb.co.za>.
Robert Menschel wrote:
> Just quick notice that the SARE OBFU rules (70_sare_obfu*.cf) have
> been updated.
Can someone mention whats the difference between:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist.cf
and
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf
Cami