You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org> on 2005/07/25 08:14:59 UTC
Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
sc2.surbl.org, the improved version of the SpamCop SURBL list, is
ready for testing. So is the new version of xs.surbl.org, which
is now more accurate, has far fewer FPs, etc.
sc2 adds resolved IP checks, meaning sites hosted on the same
networks are detected immediately upon the first report. It also
means that folks should continue to use SpamCop reporting if they
want to contribute to a very powerful SURBL list. Your SpamCop
reports now have even more power in sc2. In cases of the worst
spammers, SpamCop reporting leads to essentially immediate
listing in sc2.
sc2 is on about 15 public nameservers and xs is on 22. That's
probably not enough for running large production servers on, but
it should be plenty for corpus checks and mail servers with small
to medium message volumes.
If you have rsync access to the SURBL zone files you can also
mirror the files locally for testing of course. The sc2 and xs
zones are currently available via rsync. (If you have a large
volume mail server, please apply for rsync access so that you can
mirror the zone files locally: http://www3.surbl.org/rsync-signup.html
and offload the public nameservers.)
After sc2 is tested for a while we will turn it into the
production sc.surbl.org list, assuming it has better performance
than the current list, which seems quite likely. At that point
sc2 will go away, since it will have become sc.
xs may go into the 128th bit of multi.surbl.org if it tests well.
Please test sc2 and the revised xs and let us know how they
perform for you. Those with large spam and ham corpora (such as
the SpamAssassin developers) are encouraged to test and please
let us know.
Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists:
urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org.
body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.
body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
SpamAssassin 2.64 rules and scores using SpamCopURI 0.22 or later look like this:
uri SC2_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('sc2.surbl.org','127.0.0.2')
describe SC2_URI_RBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags SC2_URI_RBL net
score SC2_URI_RBL 3.0
uri XS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('xs.surbl.org','127.0.0.2')
describe XS_URI_RBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags XS_URI_RBL net
score XS_URI_RBL 2.0
Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
OK the prior rules were still wrong. These will work:
urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A
body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A
body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
Lints just fine on our SA3 with A and no addresses or numbers.
(A is preferred over TXT.)
Note that we're using urirhsbl not urirhssub since sc2.surbl.org
and xs.surbl.org are standalone lists (for testing) and not part of
multi.surbl.org.
These lists will eventually go away as standalone lists, to very
likely go into multi instead. Then you'll need to delete the sc2
rule and change xs to urirhssub and multi. We'll send an
official announcement on the SURBL announcement list when this
actually happens:
http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/announce
Until then, please test sc2 and xs and let us know how they work
for you.
Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Martin Hepworth <ma...@solid-state-logic.com>.
jdow wrote:
> From: "Jeff Chan" <je...@surbl.org>
> Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings
>
>
>>Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists:
>>
>
>
> urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. TXT
> body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
>
> score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
>
> urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. TXT
> body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
> tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
>
> score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
>
>
> This passes lint, at least.
>
> {^_^}
>
>
Another --lint test pass on this one, and both Jeff's varients fail to
parse on SA 3.0.4 for me.
--
--
Martin Hepworth
Senior Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic Ltd
tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.
**********************************************************************
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:06:10 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
> From: "Jeff Chan" <je...@surbl.org>
>> On Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:33:08 AM, jdow jdow wrote:
>> > From: "Jeff Chan" <je...@surbl.org>
>> > Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings
>>
>> >> Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two
> lists:
>>
>> Please try:
>>
>> urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
>> body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
>> describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at
> http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
>> tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
>>
>> score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
>>
>> urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
>> body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
>> describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
>> tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
>>
>> score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
> config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
> URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
> config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
> URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
> Note that it passes if I use TXT.
> {^_^}
Did you see my follow up message? "A" without anything after it
should work. It worked on my SA3. TXT will also work, but A is
preferred.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "Jeff Chan" <je...@surbl.org>
> On Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:33:08 AM, jdow jdow wrote:
> > From: "Jeff Chan" <je...@surbl.org>
> > Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings
>
> >> Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two
lists:
>
> Please try:
>
> urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
> body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at
http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
>
> score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
>
> urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
> body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
> tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
>
> score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
Note that it passes if I use TXT.
{^_^}
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:33:08 AM, jdow jdow wrote:
> From: "Jeff Chan" <je...@surbl.org>
> Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings
>> Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists:
Please try:
urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "Jeff Chan" <je...@surbl.org>
Is this correct as ammended? I added the "TXT" strings
> Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists:
>
urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. TXT
body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. TXT
body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
This passes lint, at least.
{^_^}
Re: runaway processes
Posted by Tom Gwilt <tg...@suite224.net>.
My setup is as follows:
FreeBSD 4.10, SpamAssassin 3.0.4, Perl 5.8
Using Bayes and a pile 'o SARE rules.
It scanned 34484 messages last night and the only time we see lags is when
the bayes database is expiring.
The startup script is as follows:
/usr/local/bin/spamd --max-children=6 --max-conn-per-child=20 -d -x -u
daemon -s local0"
HTH,
Tom
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Clay Irving <cl...@panix.com>.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 04:25:20PM -0700, jdow wrote:
>>>From the last few days:
>>
>> SURBL Hits
>> --------------- -------
>> URIBL_PH_SURBL 3
>> URIBL_AB_SURBL 5,342
>> URIBL_XS_SURBL 3,529
>> URIBL_JP_SURBL 14,423
>> URIBL_SC2_SURBL 5,681
>> URIBL_OB_SURBL 11,742
>> URIBL_SC_SURBL 5,097
>> URIBL_WS_SURBL 9,931
> It sure would help to know how may of those hits were on ham vice spam.
Very little is hitting on ham.
Email: 11881 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -51.29 AvgScanTime: 1.72 sec
Spam: 3004 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 21.54 AvgScanTime: 2.01 sec
Ham: 8877 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -75.93 AvgScanTime: 1.62 sec
Time Spent Running SA: 5.67 hours
Time Spent Processing Spam: 1.68 hours
Time Spent Processing Ham: 4.00 hours
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
------------------------------------------------------------
RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
------------------------------------------------------------
1 HTML_MESSAGE 2325 6.68 19.57 77.40 52.03
2 URIBL_SBL 1949 5.60 16.40 64.88 0.16
3 DCC_CHECK 1936 5.56 16.29 64.45 1.03
4 URIBL_JP_SURBL 1815 5.21 15.28 60.42 0.02
5 URIBL_OB_SURBL 1636 4.70 13.77 54.46 0.26
6 URIBL_WS_SURBL 1208 3.47 10.17 40.21 0.01
7 MIME_HTML_ONLY 970 2.79 8.16 32.29 3.68
8 SKX_UNKNOWN_RECEIVED 863 2.48 7.26 28.73 12.88
9 URIBL_SC2_SURBL 801 2.30 6.74 26.66 0.00
10 HTML_90_100 741 2.13 6.24 24.67 7.16
11 URIBL_SC_SURBL 659 1.89 5.55 21.94 0.00
12 URIBL_AB_SURBL 631 1.81 5.31 21.01 0.00
13 URIBL_XS_SURBL 620 1.78 5.22 20.64 0.01
14 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL 582 1.67 4.90 19.37 0.55
15 HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE 446 1.28 3.75 14.85 0.29
16 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 435 1.25 3.66 14.48 0.18
17 SKX_X 416 1.19 3.50 13.85 1.01
18 SKX_FREE 362 1.04 3.05 12.05 3.09
19 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL 343 0.99 2.89 11.42 0.19
20 HTML_WEB_BUGS 337 0.97 2.84 11.22 0.69
------------------------------------------------------------
TOP HAM RULES FIRED
------------------------------------------------------------
RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
------------------------------------------------------------
1 USER_IN_WHITELIST 6887 25.62 57.97 0.00 77.58
2 HTML_MESSAGE 4619 17.19 38.88 77.40 52.03
3 SKX_UNKNOWN_RECEIVED 1143 4.25 9.62 28.73 12.88
4 NO_REAL_NAME 1088 4.05 9.16 8.72 12.26
5 HTML_90_100 636 2.37 5.35 24.67 7.16
6 HTML_FONT_BIG 615 2.29 5.18 7.86 6.93
7 HTML_30_40 536 1.99 4.51 2.03 6.04
8 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 520 1.93 4.38 9.65 5.86
9 HTML_50_60 479 1.78 4.03 3.36 5.40
10 HTML_60_70 462 1.72 3.89 6.52 5.20
11 HTML_40_50 450 1.67 3.79 6.76 5.07
12 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 448 1.67 3.77 8.22 5.05
13 SUBJ_ALL_CAPS 354 1.32 2.98 0.63 3.99
14 UPPERCASE_25_50 352 1.31 2.96 0.63 3.97
15 MIME_HTML_ONLY 327 1.22 2.75 32.29 3.68
16 HTML_20_30 327 1.22 2.75 0.70 3.68
17 MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR 297 1.11 2.50 0.90 3.35
18 SKX_FREE 274 1.02 2.31 12.05 3.09
19 HOT_NASTY 261 0.97 2.20 0.77 2.94
20 USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO 212 0.79 1.78 0.07 2.39
------------------------------------------------------------
--
Clay Irving <cl...@panix.com>
When I was a little kid we had a sand box. It was a quicksand box. I was
an only child... eventually.
- Steven Wright
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
It sure would help to know how may of those hits were on ham vice spam.
{^_^}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay Irving" <cl...@panix.com>
> >From the last few days:
>
> SURBL Hits
> --------------- -------
> URIBL_PH_SURBL 3
> URIBL_AB_SURBL 5,342
> URIBL_XS_SURBL 3,529
> URIBL_JP_SURBL 14,423
> URIBL_SC2_SURBL 5,681
> URIBL_OB_SURBL 11,742
> URIBL_SC_SURBL 5,097
> URIBL_WS_SURBL 9,931
>
> --
> Clay Irving <cl...@panix.com>
> You know my motto: Forgive and uh... the other thing.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Clay Irving <cl...@panix.com>.
>From the last few days:
SURBL Hits
--------------- -------
URIBL_PH_SURBL 3
URIBL_AB_SURBL 5,342
URIBL_XS_SURBL 3,529
URIBL_JP_SURBL 14,423
URIBL_SC2_SURBL 5,681
URIBL_OB_SURBL 11,742
URIBL_SC_SURBL 5,097
URIBL_WS_SURBL 9,931
--
Clay Irving <cl...@panix.com>
You know my motto: Forgive and uh... the other thing.
RE: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Sander Holthaus - Orange XL <in...@orangexl.com>.
>From the last three days:
SpamAssassinRuleHits for SPAM (score 10 and higher):
BAYES_99 ( 95%)
RAZOR2_CHECK ( 90%)
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 ( 85%)
DIGEST_MULTIPLE ( 74%)
URIBL_BLACK ( 72%)
HTML_MESSAGE ( 71%)
DCC_CHECK ( 66%)
URIBL_OB_SURBL ( 60%)
URIBL_JP_SURBL ( 60%)
URIBL_WS_SURBL ( 57%)
URIBL_SC2_SURBL ( 57%) <--
PYZOR_CHECK ( 55%)
URIBL_SBL ( 52%)
URIBL_SC_SURBL ( 50%)
URIBL_XS_SURBL ( 44%) <--
URIBL_AB_SURBL ( 43%)
MIME_HTML_ONLY ( 40%)
RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL ( 39%)
FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS ( 31%)
RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL ( 30%)
Kind Regards,
Sander Holthaus
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Chris <cp...@earthlink.net>.
On Monday 25 July 2005 01:14 am, Jeff Chan wrote:
> Please test sc2 and the revised xs and let us know how they
> perform for you. Those with large spam and ham corpora (such as
> the SpamAssassin developers) are encouraged to test and please
> let us know.
Although I don't have a large amount of mail received at my home system, SC2
is scoring fairly well:
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
------------------------------------------------------------
RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
------------------------------------------------------------
1 PYZOR_CHECK 130 5.87 71.04 100.00 100.00
2 DIGEST_MULTIPLE 119 5.38 65.03 91.54 0.00
3 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 116 5.24 63.39 89.23 0.00
4 RAZOR2_CHECK 116 5.24 63.39 89.23 0.00
5 BAYES_99 112 5.06 61.20 86.15 0.00
6 URIBL_JP_SURBL 79 3.57 43.17 60.77 0.00
7 DCC_CHECK 73 3.30 39.89 56.15 0.00
8 URIBL_SC2_SURBL 71 3.21 38.80 54.62 0.00
9 URIBL_OB_SURBL 70 3.16 38.25 53.85 0.00
10 HTML_MESSAGE 66 2.98 36.07 50.77 7.55
11 URIBL_AB_SURBL 63 2.85 34.43 48.46 0.00
12 URIBL_SC_SURBL 56 2.53 30.60 43.08 0.00
13 URIBL_SBL 56 2.53 30.60 43.08 0.00
14 URIBL_XS_SURBL 56 2.53 30.60 43.08 0.00
15 RCVD_IN_XBL 55 2.49 30.05 42.31 0.00
16 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 50 2.26 27.32 38.46 0.00
17 URIBL_WS_SURBL 46 2.08 25.14 35.38 0.00
18 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO 35 1.58 19.13 26.92 0.00
19 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 30 1.36 16.39 23.08 0.00
20 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 30 1.36 16.39 23.08 5.66
Chris
--
Chris
Registered Linux User 283774 http://counter.li.org
06:15:07 up 5 days, 7:16, 1 user, load average: 0.18, 0.21, 0.26
Mandriva Linux 10.1 Official, kernel 2.6.8.1-12mdk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pinking shears get dull just by looking at them
-- Murphy's Laws of Sewing n°17
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
OK the prior rules were still wrong. These will work:
urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A
body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A
body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
Lints just fine on our SA3 with A and no addresses or numbers.
(A is preferred over TXT.)
Note that we're using urirhsbl not urirhssub since sc2.surbl.org
and xs.surbl.org are standalone lists (for testing) and not part of
multi.surbl.org.
These lists will eventually go away as standalone lists, to very
likely go into multi instead. Then you'll need to delete the sc2
rule and change xs to urirhssub and multi. We'll send an
official announcement on the SURBL announcement list when this
actually happens:
http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/announce
Until then, please test sc2 and xs and let us know how they work
for you.
Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
jdow pointed out problems with the prior rules for SA 3.0.1+.
These ones should work:
urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
jdow pointed out problems with the prior rules for SA 3.0.1+.
These ones should work:
urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Clay Irving <cl...@panix.com>.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:58:30PM -0700, jdow wrote:
>> I added them yesterday, and I've had no hits. I am hitting other SURBLs:
>
> Did you restart spamd?
Yes. My "no hits" is attributed to bad analysis. :)
XS 2,698 times
JP 12,251 times
XS2 4,733 times
--
Clay Irving <cl...@panix.com>
The Stones, I love the Stones. I watch them whenever I can. Fred, Barney...
- Steven Wright
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "Clay Irving" <cl...@panix.com>
> I added them yesterday, and I've had no hits. I am hitting other SURBLs:
Did you restart spamd?
{^_^}
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Thursday, July 28, 2005, 12:29:49 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Hi!
>> I added them yesterday, and I've had no hits. I am hitting other SURBLs:
>>
>> URIBL_AB_SURBL 1,345 times
>> URIBL_OB_SURBL 2,982 times
>> URIBL_SC_SURBL 2,564 times
>> URIBL_WS_SURBL 1,111 times
> You dont use URIBL_JP_SURBL ? You might wanna add that one.
> Bye,
> Raymond.
LOL You're so helpful! :-)
How is the SC2 list working for you?
I have a feeling I'm going to ask you to process the XS data with
your JP servers (i.e. add it as a feed for JP), but I need to
get the benchmarking working first.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Clay Irving <cl...@panix.com>.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:13:38PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
> That will work, but it's technically incorrect since the
> standalone lists sc2 and xs aren't bitmask-encoded, which is what
> urirhssub is intended for. Standalone lists should be used with
> urirhsbl, so correct, working rules for these are:
>
>
> urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A
> body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
>
> score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
>
> urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A
> body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
> tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
>
> score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
>
>
> Please give them a try and let us know how they work for you.
I added them yesterday, and I've had no hits. I am hitting other SURBLs:
URIBL_AB_SURBL 1,345 times
URIBL_OB_SURBL 2,982 times
URIBL_SC_SURBL 2,564 times
URIBL_WS_SURBL 1,111 times
--
Clay Irving <cl...@panix.com>
RECONCILIATION, n. A suspension of hostilities. An armed truce for the
purpose of digging up the dead.
- Ambrose Bierce
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Tim Litwiller <ti...@litwiller.net>.
Jeff Chan wrote:
>On Monday, July 25, 2005, 3:11:40 PM, Tim Litwiller wrote:
>
>
>>this is what it took to make it work for me
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>_urirhssub_ URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
>>body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
>>describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
>>tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
>>score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>_urirhssub_ URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
>>body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
>>describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
>>tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
>>score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
>>
>>
>
>That will work, but it's technically incorrect since the
>standalone lists sc2 and xs aren't bitmask-encoded, which is what
>urirhssub is intended for. Standalone lists should be used with
>urirhsbl, so correct, working rules for these are:
>
>
>urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A
>body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
>describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
>tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
>
>score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
>
>urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A
>body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
>describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
>tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
>
>score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
>
>
>Please give them a try and let us know how they work for you.
>
>Jeff C.
>
>
that works now - either something changed or I did something wrong earlier.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Monday, July 25, 2005, 3:11:40 PM, Tim Litwiller wrote:
> this is what it took to make it work for me
> _urirhssub_ URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
> body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
> score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
> _urirhssub_ URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
> body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
> tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
> score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
That will work, but it's technically incorrect since the
standalone lists sc2 and xs aren't bitmask-encoded, which is what
urirhssub is intended for. Standalone lists should be used with
urirhsbl, so correct, working rules for these are:
urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A
body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A
body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
Please give them a try and let us know how they work for you.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Tim Litwiller <ti...@litwiller.net>.
jdow wrote:
>From: "Jeff Chan" <je...@surbl.org>
>
>
>
>>Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists:
>>
>>urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org.
>>body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
>>describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at
>>
>>
>http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
>
>
>>tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
>>
>>score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
>>
>>urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.
>>body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
>>describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
>>tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
>>
>>score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
>>
>>
>
>config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
>URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org.
>config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
>URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.
>
>Debug on:
>debug: plugin: registered
>Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0xa4b3a18)
>debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF from @INC
>debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF=HASH(0xa4b50ec)
>debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa4c8efc)
>implements 'parse_config'
>debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0xa4b3a18)
>implements 'parse_config'
>config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
>URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org.
>config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
>URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.
>
>
>Er - oops. 3.04
>{^_^}
>
>
>
>
this is what it took to make it work for me
_urirhssub_ URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
_urirhssub_ URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org. A 127.0.0.2
body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
From: "Jeff Chan" <je...@surbl.org>
> Here are SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and later configs for using these two lists:
>
> urirhsbl URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org.
> body URIBL_SC2_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SC2_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_SC2_SURBL Has URI in SC2 at
http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags URIBL_SC2_SURBL net
>
> score URIBL_SC2_SURBL 3.0
>
> urirhsbl URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.
> body URIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_XS_SURBL Has URI in XS - Testing
> tflags URIBL_XS_SURBL net
>
> score URIBL_XS_SURBL 2.0
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org.
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.
Debug on:
debug: plugin: registered
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0xa4b3a18)
debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF from @INC
debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF=HASH(0xa4b50ec)
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa4c8efc)
implements 'parse_config'
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0xa4b3a18)
implements 'parse_config'
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
URIBL_SC2_SURBL sc2.surbl.org.
config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: urirhsbl
URIBL_XS_SURBL xs.surbl.org.
Er - oops. 3.04
{^_^}
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
Some stats from one of our SA servers. After about two days we
had:
9076 SURBL hits
5373 SC2 hits
4813 SC hits
1148 SC2 hits that did not also hit SC
588 SC hits that did not also hit SC2
3701 XS hits
1890 SC2 hits that did not hit XS
218 XS hits that did not hit SC2
So it looks like sc2 hit about 10% more messages than SC.
Of the other lists:
7779 JP
6781 OB
5798 WS
4691 AB
7 PH
This is without analysis of FPs.
Would be very interested to hear how these new lists test out
SpamAssassin corpora, or any other corpora or mail servers for
that matter.
Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Re: Please test sc2.surbl.org (and xs.surbl.org)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
Some stats from one of our SA servers. After about two days we
had:
9076 SURBL hits
5373 SC2 hits
4813 SC hits
1148 SC2 hits that did not also hit SC
588 SC hits that did not also hit SC2
3701 XS hits
1890 SC2 hits that did not hit XS
218 XS hits that did not hit SC2
So it looks like sc2 hit about 10% more messages than SC.
Of the other lists:
7779 JP
6781 OB
5798 WS
4691 AB
7 PH
This is without analysis of FPs.
Would be very interested to hear how these new lists test out
SpamAssassin corpora, or any other corpora or mail servers for
that matter.
Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.