You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Frank Tore Johansen <fr...@osc.no> on 2004/10/26 10:40:05 UTC
Spamassassin and SpamCopURI
Hi, I'm in the progress of upgrading SA from 2.63 to 2.64 and SpamCopURI
from 0.19 to 0.22.
During make test of SA I get these during each t/rule_tests:
t/rule_tests................ok 61/62Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin
tests, skipping:
(syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, rule WS_URI_RBL,
line 1, near "eval:"
syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule
SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:"
syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule
SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 6, near "}
}"
I am aware that there was a discussion on the surbl list about this a few
months ago, where someone said it could be caused by two Conf.pm's.
However, I only have the one in
/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm and the two in
the 2.64 distribution: the original ./lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm and
the make-generated ./blib/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm
The errors didn't go away after installing SpamCopURI 0.22. I still
haven't dared install SA.
This is the relevant entry in local.cf:
# Domain blacklists
uri WS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('ws.surbl.org','127.0.0.2')
describe WS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in sa-blacklist
tflags WS_URI_RBL net
score WS_URI_RBL 3.0
And this is from spamcop_uri.cf:
uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('sc.surbl.org','127.0.0.2')
describe SPAMCOP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in spamcop database at sc.surbl.org
tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL net
score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 3.0
So, what is causing the test errors? Can I safely ignore them, or will my
RBL's stop working if I upgrade?
I had hoped for a quick upgrade from 2.63 to 2.64 due to warnings about
DOS (and the last few days our mailserver actually went out of memory
twice, so it could be that spammers have started actually using this
DOS)...
-Frank.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Spamassassin and SpamCopURI
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 8:36:21 AM, Frank Johansen wrote:
> Sorry for being a bit quick with my last mail. I got it to work now, was
> just an erroneously newline that got into the rules files when I cut & pasted.
Yes, I should have mentioned those rules are on three lines and
one of the lines is pretty long and can appear to wrap where
in fact they don't wrap. Glad to hear things are working for
you!
Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Spamassassin and SpamCopURI
Posted by Frank Tore Johansen <fr...@osc.no>.
Sorry for being a bit quick with my last mail. I got it to work now, was
just an erroneously newline that got into the rules files when I cut & pasted.
-Frank.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Spamassassin and SpamCopURI
Posted by Frank Tore Johansen <fr...@osc.no>.
Thanks. I did the changes you illustrated below (into
spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf). The "make test" errors went away, so I went
ahead and did "make install" of SpamAssassin 2.64, as well as a reinstall
of SpamCopURI-0.22 (just in case). I also removed the old override in
local.cf and skip_rbl_checks is still set to 0.
Unfortunatedly I don't get hits on RBL checks anymore. I verified this by
forwarding a mail with a verified listed domain (in ws.surbl.org and
multi.surbl.org). I'm not using spamc/spamd. (And all the non-RBL checks
still work fine.)
Any ideas on how I go about figuring out why RBL checks turned themselves
off on the upgrade? How can I get any kind of debug log?
-Frank.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 1:40:05 AM, Frank Johansen wrote:
>> Hi, I'm in the progress of upgrading SA from 2.63 to 2.64 and SpamCopURI
>> from 0.19 to 0.22.
>
> The syntax for the SpamCopURI 0.22 rules is new to reflect use of
> the combined list multi.surbl.org, so please update them to look
> like these. Also please add two lists, AB and JP, to the 0.22
> configs:
>
> uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+2')
> describe SPAMCOP_URI_RBL Has URI in SC at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL net
>
> uri WS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+4')
> describe WS_URI_RBL Has URI in WS at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags WS_URI_RBL net
>
> uri PH_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+8')
> describe PH_URI_RBL Has URI in PH at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags PH_URI_RBL net
>
> uri OB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+16')
> describe OB_URI_RBL Has URI in OB at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags OB_URI_RBL net
>
> uri AB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+32')
> describe AB_URI_RBL Has URI in AB at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags AB_URI_RBL net
>
> uri JP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+64')
> describe JP_URI_RBL Has URI in JP at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags JP_URI_RBL net
>
> score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 4.0
> score WS_URI_RBL 1.5
> score PH_URI_RBL 3.0
> score OB_URI_RBL 2.2
> score AB_URI_RBL 3.0
> score JP_URI_RBL 2.5
>
> Please remove any old rules referring to lists other than
> multi.surbl.org (i.e. sc.surbl.org, ws.surbl.org should no longer
> be used since they're in multi now).
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Jeff C.
> --
> "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
>
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Spamassassin and SpamCopURI
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 1:40:05 AM, Frank Johansen wrote:
> Hi, I'm in the progress of upgrading SA from 2.63 to 2.64 and SpamCopURI
> from 0.19 to 0.22.
The syntax for the SpamCopURI 0.22 rules is new to reflect use of
the combined list multi.surbl.org, so please update them to look
like these. Also please add two lists, AB and JP, to the 0.22
configs:
uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+2')
describe SPAMCOP_URI_RBL Has URI in SC at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL net
uri WS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+4')
describe WS_URI_RBL Has URI in WS at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags WS_URI_RBL net
uri PH_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+8')
describe PH_URI_RBL Has URI in PH at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags PH_URI_RBL net
uri OB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+16')
describe OB_URI_RBL Has URI in OB at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags OB_URI_RBL net
uri AB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+32')
describe AB_URI_RBL Has URI in AB at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags AB_URI_RBL net
uri JP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0+64')
describe JP_URI_RBL Has URI in JP at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags JP_URI_RBL net
score SPAMCOP_URI_RBL 4.0
score WS_URI_RBL 1.5
score PH_URI_RBL 3.0
score OB_URI_RBL 2.2
score AB_URI_RBL 3.0
score JP_URI_RBL 2.5
Please remove any old rules referring to lists other than
multi.surbl.org (i.e. sc.surbl.org, ws.surbl.org should no longer
be used since they're in multi now).
Hope this helps,
Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."