You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Jason Haar <Ja...@trimble.co.nz> on 2004/12/02 04:17:05 UTC
URIBL_JP_SURBL not working with 3.0.1 - but works with 3.0.0?
Hi there
I have a few Fedora Core2 SA severs - the live ones with 3.0.1 (from
tar), and my workstation running 3.0.0 (from rpm).
A few spam got to my INBOX (shock! horror!), and just fer kicks I ran
them through my local SA - and got 6.2/5.
So 3.0.0 scored them as 6.2/5 - but the original SA server (running
3.0.1) scored them as 2.2/5...
I then checked /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf - they are the same. Both had
urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
header URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Has URI in JP at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_JP_SURBL net
score URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.0
at the bottom. And yet "spamassassin -D < spam.eml" on both servers
reports different results. Both succeed in doing the URIBL_JP_SURBL -
but one gets 4 points and the 3.0.1 scored it as 0...
Both SA 3.0.0 and 3.0.1 showed:
debug: URIDNSBL: domain "platinumprodirect.com" listed (URIBL_WS_SURBL):
127.0.0.68
debug: URIDNSBL: domain "platinumprodirect.com" listed (URIBL_JP_SURBL):
127.0.0.68
But the URIBL_JP_SURBL score shows up on the 3.0.0 system - and not the
3.0.1 (BTW: it might help debugging if the score assigned to these RBL
lookups showed up in the debugs? The 4.0 score is only mentioned in the
output - not the debugs)
Any ideas?
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1
Re: URIBL_JP_SURBL not working with 3.0.1 - but works with 3.0.0?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:12:14AM -0800, Dan Quinlan wrote:
> Maybe we should parse either in the URIBL module until 3.1?
I don't think it's worth it, but wouldn't be opposed to a patch. (it should
be pretty trivial iirc)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Anyone who thinks UNIX is intuitive should be forced to write 5000 lines of
code using nothing but vi or emacs. AAAAACK!
(Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of commands, especially
Emacs.)
Re: URIBL_JP_SURBL not working with 3.0.1 - but works with 3.0.0?
Posted by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>.
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> This has come up before: they're body rules now.
Maybe we should parse either in the URIBL module until 3.1?
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
Re: URIBL_JP_SURBL not working with 3.0.1 - but works with 3.0.0?
Posted by Jason Haar <Ja...@trimble.co.nz>.
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:17:05PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
>
>
>>header URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
>>Any ideas?
>>
>>
>
>This has come up before: they're body rules now.
>
>
>
Sheesh - two seconds of looking on Google for "URIBL_JP_SURBL body"
tells me what you say is true.
For the record
What was (in 3.0.0)
header URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
in 3.0.1 it's
body URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
Problem fixed. Thanks!
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1
Re: URIBL_JP_SURBL not working with 3.0.1 - but works with 3.0.0?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:17:05PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
> header URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
> Any ideas?
This has come up before: they're body rules now.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"I'm nothing ... I'm navel lint ..." - From the movie True Lies