You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by OliverScott <ol...@fhsinternet.com> on 2007/06/23 18:23:39 UTC
Changes to SURBL in SA 3.2.1?
I have just been picking through some of the changes in 3.2.1 (having just
installed it) to see what impact this will have on my custom rules and RBLs
etc and have noticed somthing strange!
3.2.0 checked the following URIBLs
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_0_x.html:
URIBL_SBL
URIBL_SC_SURBL
URIBL_WS_SURBL
URIBL_PH_SURBL
URIBL_OB_SURBL
URIBL_AB_SURBL
3.2.1 checks the following URIBLs
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_2_x.html:
URIBL_COMPLETEWHOIS
URIBL_RHS_ABUSE
URIBL_RHS_AHBL
URIBL_RHS_BOGUSMX
URIBL_RHS_DOB
URIBL_RHS_DSN
URIBL_RHS_POST
URIBL_RHS_TLD_WHOIS
URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK
URIBL_RHS_URIBL_GREY
URIBL_RHS_WHOIS
URIBL_XS_SURBL (URL listed in XS SURBL - TEsting)
My question is: Does URIBL_XS_SURBL replace all the previous SURBL black
lists? Is it in effect multi.surbl.org? I can't find any details on XS_SURBL
on the surbl.org website...
If it is a multiple check then this will reduce the scoring of some SPAM as
it is scored at 1, when some of the old SURBL rules where scored at 2, 3,
and even 4! Not a problem IMHO as SA now includes several other good URI BLs
including the excelent URIBL_BLACK.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Changes-to-SURBL-in-SA-3.2.1--tf3969802.html#a11267936
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: errors after upgrading from 3.1.8 to 3.2.1
Posted by Gary V <mr...@hotmail.com>.
>Hello all,
>
>Could somebody point out how to fix the following errors (getting them when
>running spamassassin --lint)
>
>----------------------------------------
>[12449] warn: config: 'uridnsbl_timeout' is obsolete, use 'rbl_timeout'
>instead at
>/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm line
>396.
Should be obvious. Find this setting in a config file (like local.cf) and
change it.
>[12449] warn: rules: failed to run FORGED_RCVD_HELO test, skipping:
>[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "check_for_forged_received_helo"
>via package "Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1263) line 105.
>[12449] warn: )
>[12449] warn: rules: failed to run MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID test, skipping:
>[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "message_id_from_mta" via
>package
>"Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1263) line 496.
>[12449] warn: )
>[12449] warn: rules: failed to run FROM_AND_TO_SAME test, skipping:
>[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "check_for_from_to_same" via
>package "Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1263) line 557.
>[12449] warn: )
>[12449] warn: rules: failed to run DOMAIN_RATIO test, skipping:
>[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "check_domain_ratio" via package
>"Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1312) line 281.
>[12449] warn: )
>[12449] warn: rules: failed to run UNIQUE_WORDS test, skipping:
>[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "check_unique_words" via package
>"Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1312) line 1706.
>[12449] warn: )
>[12449] warn: lint: 5 issues detected, please rerun with debug enabled for
>more information
>----------------------------------------
>Thank you for your help in advance.
>Irina
>
Possibly using some old rules? Maybe the upgrade left old rule sets? If you
run sa-update you should get a new set of rules. Try that. Also check that
you are not referring to any of these rules in one of your config files
(like local.cf).
Gary V
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more!
http://mobile.msn.com
errors after upgrading from 3.1.8 to 3.2.1
Posted by Irina <ir...@nas.net>.
Hello all,
Could somebody point out how to fix the following errors (getting them when
running spamassassin --lint)
----------------------------------------
[12449] warn: config: 'uridnsbl_timeout' is obsolete, use 'rbl_timeout'
instead at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm line
396.
[12449] warn: rules: failed to run FORGED_RCVD_HELO test, skipping:
[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "check_for_forged_received_helo"
via package "Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1263) line 105.
[12449] warn: )
[12449] warn: rules: failed to run MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID test, skipping:
[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "message_id_from_mta" via package
"Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1263) line 496.
[12449] warn: )
[12449] warn: rules: failed to run FROM_AND_TO_SAME test, skipping:
[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "check_for_from_to_same" via
package "Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1263) line 557.
[12449] warn: )
[12449] warn: rules: failed to run DOMAIN_RATIO test, skipping:
[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "check_domain_ratio" via package
"Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1312) line 281.
[12449] warn: )
[12449] warn: rules: failed to run UNIQUE_WORDS test, skipping:
[12449] warn: (Can't locate object method "check_unique_words" via package
"Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1312) line 1706.
[12449] warn: )
[12449] warn: lint: 5 issues detected, please rerun with debug enabled for
more information
----------------------------------------
Thank you for your help in advance.
Irina
Re: Changes to SURBL in SA 3.2.1?
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
Matt Kettler wrote:
> OliverScott wrote:
>> EDIT: My mistake - the URIBLs are listed in two different places in the 3.2.1
>> rules table! However URIBL_BLACK does seem to be listed twice with different
>> names and scores...
>>
> AFAIK, the RHS one is a test rule that accidentally got published to
> sa-update.
>
> The difference here isn't 3.2.1 vs 3.2.0, it's the sa-update channel data.
>
> See also this post from 5/31/2007:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/sandbox-sa-update-thought-t3848407.html
Actually the current rule updates *remove* the test rules from the
ruleset to avoid bug 5487 in 3.2.0 which also included the test rules in
the base release ruleset. 3.2.1 and later aren't affected, and I was
too lazy to get votes to remove the test rules, so they're still
included in the base releases but zero scored (as they were in 3.2.0).
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5487
If using 3.2.0, URIBL_BLACK and URIBL_GREY won't work unless you either
run sa-update (recommended) or write your own URIBL_* rules that use a
dot-quad to match against in the urirhssub rule. In 3.2.1, URIBL_BLACK
and URIBL_GREY work with or without running sa-update.
Daryl
Re: Changes to SURBL in SA 3.2.1?
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>.
OliverScott wrote:
> EDIT: My mistake - the URIBLs are listed in two different places in the 3.2.1
> rules table! However URIBL_BLACK does seem to be listed twice with different
> names and scores...
>
AFAIK, the RHS one is a test rule that accidentally got published to
sa-update.
The difference here isn't 3.2.1 vs 3.2.0, it's the sa-update channel data.
See also this post from 5/31/2007:
http://www.nabble.com/sandbox-sa-update-thought-t3848407.html