URIBL_DBL_REDIR

[Ned Slider <ne...@unixmail.co.uk>]

Hi List,

I noticed the recent addition of URIBL_DBL_REDIR hitting on a few spams:

25_uribl.cf:urirhssub       URIBL_DBL_REDIR  dbl.spamhaus.org.       A 
  127.0.1.3
25_uribl.cf:body            URIBL_DBL_REDIR 
eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_DBL_REDIRECTOR')
25_uribl.cf:describe        URIBL_DBL_REDIR  Contains a URL listed in 
the DBL as a spammed redirector domain

Nice.

I just wondered if someone would like to look at a meta rule with 
FREEMAIL_FROM as that's hitting a lot of spam here, although I don't see 
too much (non-ML) legit freemail so I don't know how much ham it might 
hit for others (hence the request).

Re: URIBL_DBL_REDIR

[Daniel McDonald <da...@austinenergy.com>]

I have such a meta (I've been querying URIBL_DBL for some time).

Out of 140 hits on the meta, only about 14 pushed the spam over from flagged
to quarantined this week.  I checked through many of them and each sample
looked like obnoxious spam.



On 12/28/11 10:51 AM, "Ned Slider" <ne...@unixmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi List,
> 
> I noticed the recent addition of URIBL_DBL_REDIR hitting on a few spams:
> 
> 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub       URIBL_DBL_REDIR  dbl.spamhaus.org.       A
>   127.0.1.3
> 25_uribl.cf:body            URIBL_DBL_REDIR
> eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_DBL_REDIRECTOR')
> 25_uribl.cf:describe        URIBL_DBL_REDIR  Contains a URL listed in
> the DBL as a spammed redirector domain
> 
> Nice.
> 
> I just wondered if someone would like to look at a meta rule with
> FREEMAIL_FROM as that's hitting a lot of spam here, although I don't see
> too much (non-ML) legit freemail so I don't know how much ham it might
> hit for others (hence the request).
> 
>