PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as
RHSBL
Is this the correct configruation line for doing
this?SURBLS-RHSBL rhsbl %MAILFROM%.sc.surbl.org
127.0.0.2 5 0Markus---[This E-mail was scanned for
viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]---This
E-mail came from the Declude.J
: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as RHSBL
Markus, if you want to test against all of the SURBLs, since it's only a
single query to the multi zone, use:
SURBL_AB rhsbl multi.surbl.org127.0.0.32 1 0
SURBL_JP rhsbl multi.surbl.org127.0.0.64 1 0
, 2004 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as RHSBL
Modification, since I was not thinking, but Declude JunkMail does not
support bitmasked responses. So instead of using the multi zone, you will
need to use:
SURBL_AB rhsbl ab.surbl.org127.0.0.2 1 0
SURBL_JP rhsbl jp.surbl.org
]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as RHSBL
Modification, since I was not thinking, but Declude JunkMail does not
support bitmasked responses. So instead of using the multi zone, you will
need to use:
SURBL_AB rhsbl ab.surbl.org127.0.0.2 1 0
I would rather not add six new tests to my config. Would you
recommend a single SURBL test? Which one seems to work better?
I've running it now on my servers and can report the first results after 24
hours. I'll let you know how much and how accurate all 6 tests will perform.
Markus
---
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as RHSBL
Hmmm, that could possibly render some decent results if spammers use the
same domain in the MAIL FROM: address in the SMTP envelope as they us in
the URI listed in the body of the message
It's info gleaned from several different lists. I always
try to report anything new to this list anyway...
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Darin Cox
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:02
AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as
RHSBL
- Original Message -
From: Scott Fisher
I don't believe the Jon Wein and the Phish are testable on their own. I
haven't received an hits on jp.surbl.org.
Yep, that does appear to be the case for the JP list - it was the last list
added to SURBL, and since it was added after the
23, 2004 7:15
AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as
RHSBL
I would rather not add six new tests to my config. Would
you recommend asingle SURBL test? Which one seems to work
better?Regards,Jason- Original Message -
From: "Darin Cox" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:32
AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL as
RHSBL
I would rather not add six new tests to my
config. Would you recommend a single SURBL test? Which
one seems to work better?I've running it now on my servers and can
: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:47 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SURBL
as RHSBL
Folks, apparently the PH and JP lists were never setup as
separate SURBL zones, so I would recommend not querying those lists as you
will never get a response from them until Declude
Hmmm, that could possibly render some decent results if spammers use the
same domain in the MAIL FROM: address in the SMTP envelope as they us in
the URI listed in the body of the message. How are the results stacking up
against your other RHSBL tests?
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Is this the correct configruation line for doing this?
SURBLS-RHSBL rhsbl %MAILFROM%.sc.surbl.org 127.0.0.2 5 0
Markus
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just
13 matches
Mail list logo
