https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6724
--- Comment #17 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2011-12-13 21:01:34 UTC --- OK, so URIBL has asked to use bit 1 and changed their ACL so if they return a block, bit 1 is used. I updated 25_uribl.cf to include their block rule and a score of 0.001 in 50_scores.cf. #URIBL BLOCK RULES - Bit 1 means your DNS has been blocked and this rule should be triggered to notify you. urirhssub URIBL_BLOCKED multi.uribl.com. A 1 body URIBL_BLOCKED eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_BLOCKED') describe URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. tflags URIBL_BLOCKED nice net noautolearn Also updated http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#preview to include a link to URIBL. svn commit -m 'Implementation of a proposed Block Notification Rule for URIBL using bit 1 - Bug 6724' rules Sending rules/25_uribl.cf Sending rules/50_scores.cf Transmitting file data .. Committed revision 1213921. Matthias, if you can decide on a bit (not a bitmask) to return for DNSWL blocks, we can add the notification rule. And if this moves you to change your decision to implement the purposefully wrong DNS response, we can move DNSWL back to default configuration. Then we'll keep the ticket open and perhaps someone can work on a way to make spamd recognize that the BLOCK rule is triggered and hold off on subsequent DNSBL queries for 1 hour. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
