Re: URIXBL?

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

Jeff Hardy writes:
> Hello all,
> 
> I've been diddling with some tests and wondered why there is a spamhaus
> URIBL_SBL, but not URIBL_XBL (or better yet, combined URIBL_SBL-XBL).  I
> can create this myself easy enough, but wondered if there was a reason
> XBL is not included.  Thanks.

Basically, it didn't work well ;)  Try it out -- it doesn't correlate
well with spam.

--j.

Re: URIXBL?

[Jeff Hardy <ha...@potsdam.edu>]

On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 20:38 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> Jeff Hardy writes:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > I've been diddling with some tests and wondered why there is a spamhaus
> > URIBL_SBL, but not URIBL_XBL (or better yet, combined URIBL_SBL-XBL).  I
> > can create this myself easy enough, but wondered if there was a reason
> > XBL is not included.  Thanks.
> 
> Basically, it didn't work well ;)  Try it out -- it doesn't correlate
> well with spam.
> 
> --j.

Fair enough I'll test away.  BTW, for anyone else coming across this
post:

 warn: config: error: rule 'URIBL_SBL-XBL' has invalid characters (not
Alphanumeric + Underscore + starting with a non-digit)

Have to get rid of that hyphen.  Thank you 'spamassassin -D all ...'  :)
Thanks for the reply.

-Jeff