You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@spamassassin.apache.org by kh...@apache.org on 2011/07/25 22:55:02 UTC
svn commit: r1150904 -
/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf
Author: khopesh
Date: Mon Jul 25 20:55:01 2011
New Revision: 1150904
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1150904&view=rev
Log:
edits for bug 6634 comment 2 to work around removal of __RCVD_IN_BRBL
Modified:
spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf
Modified: spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf?rev=1150904&r1=1150903&r2=1150904&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf (original)
+++ spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf Mon Jul 25 20:55:01 2011
@@ -110,14 +110,21 @@ ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNS
# and freemail). my intuition is 35-50% spam, 2-4% ham, but we could get lucky.
# the original version ensured multiple external relays and a hit in either
# spamcop or barracuda. now i've added zen, and sorbs.
-#meta DNSBL_INDIRECT !__DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY && (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT) && !(__VIA_ML||__DOS_HAS_LIST_UNSUB||__SENDER_BOT||__freemail_safe||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT)
-meta DNSBL_INDIRECT !__DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY && (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT||__RCVD_IN_ZEN||__RCVD_IN_SORBS) && !(__VIA_ML||__DOS_HAS_LIST_UNSUB||__SENDER_BOT||__freemail_safe||ALL_TRUSTED||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT||RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL)
+#
+# bug 6634 removed __RCVD_IN_BRBL
+#header __RCVD_IN_BRBL eval:check_rbl('brbl','bb.barracudacentral.org')
+#tflags __RCVD_IN_BRBL net nopublish
+#
+#meta DNSBL_INDIRECT !__DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY && (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET||__RCVD_IN_BRBL||__RCVD_IN_ZEN||__RCVD_IN_SORBS) && !(__VIA_ML||__DOS_HAS_LIST_UNSUB||__SENDER_BOT||__freemail_safe||ALL_TRUSTED||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT||RCVD_IN_XBL||RCVD_IN_PBL||RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL)
+meta DNSBL_INDIRECT !__DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY && (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET||__RCVD_IN_ZEN||__RCVD_IN_SORBS) && !(__VIA_ML||__DOS_HAS_LIST_UNSUB||__SENDER_BOT||__freemail_safe||ALL_TRUSTED||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_XBL||RCVD_IN_PBL||RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL)
describe DNSBL_INDIRECT Received indirectly through a relay in a DNSBL
tflags DNSBL_INDIRECT net nopublish # 20091203
-meta DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT||__RCVD_IN_ZEN||__RCVD_IN_SORBS) && !(ALL_TRUSTED||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT||RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL)
+#meta DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET||__RCVD_IN_BRBL||__RCVD_IN_ZEN||__RCVD_IN_SORBS) && !(ALL_TRUSTED||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT||RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL)
+meta DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET||__RCVD_IN_ZEN||__RCVD_IN_SORBS) && !(ALL_TRUSTED||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL)
describe DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE Received ~indirectly through a relay in a DNSBL
tflags DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE net nopublish # 20091207
-meta DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE_2 !(ALL_TRUSTED||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT||RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL) && (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET+RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT+__RCVD_IN_ZEN+__RCVD_IN_SORBS+__RCVD_IN_NJABL >1)
+#meta DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE_2 !(ALL_TRUSTED||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT||RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL) && (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET+__RCVD_IN_BRBL+__RCVD_IN_ZEN+__RCVD_IN_SORBS+__RCVD_IN_NJABL >1)
+meta DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE_2 !(ALL_TRUSTED||RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP||RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL) && (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET+__RCVD_IN_ZEN+__RCVD_IN_SORBS+__RCVD_IN_NJABL >1)
describe DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE_2 Received ~indirectly through a relay in 2+ DNSBLs
tflags DNSBL_INDIRECT_UNSAFE_2 net nopublish # 20091207