On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 11:02 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:52:09AM -0400, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> > multi.surbl.org. The debug output below seems to confirm that SA is not
> > going
> > to query multi.surbl.org.
>
> Of course not...
>
> > [25188] dbg: uridnsbl: domain
Dangit...wish replies were sent back to the list. Resending for everyone else
to see...
On Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:02 AM Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:52:09AM -0400, Jason Bertoch wrote:
>> multi.surbl.org. The debug output below seems to confirm that SA is
>> not goin
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:52:09AM -0400, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> multi.surbl.org. The debug output below seems to confirm that SA is not going
> to query multi.surbl.org.
Of course not...
> [25188] dbg: uridnsbl: domains to query:
There are no domains to query for, so it doesn't.
--
Randomly
On Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:16 AM John Wilcock wrote:
> Jason Bertoch wrote:
>> Yes, Net::DNS is installed and debug output says it's working.
>> Other DNS-based tests, such as SPF, are functioning correctly as
>> well.
>
> Is Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL enabled in your init.pre file
On Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:05 AM Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Do you have Net::DNS installed and working?
>
> try spamassassin -D
> Does the debug output indicate that DNS is available and working?
Yes, Net::DNS is installed and debug output says it's working. Other DNS-based
tests, such as SP
Jason Bertoch wrote:
> Lately I've been trying to report links in spam to uribl.com, obviously
> hoping to increase the hit rate for messages coming my way. However, I've
> found
> several occasions where that URL was already listed but the rule didn't
> trigger.
> Upon further review, I'm
Jon Bjorn Njalsson wrote:
Is it possible to have SA find URL in a mail and lookup the ipaddress
for the URL and check if that ipaddress is listed in some rbl zone and
score acordingly.
Example, I reveice lot of spam containing URL like
http://www.thesillyguy.info or thenopers.info and these site
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:46:36 +, Jon Bjorn Njalsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have Net::DNS module installed.
>
>
>[14934] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
>[14934] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.57
>
>and
>
>[14934] dbg: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL fr
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: URIBL
>
> I have Net::DNS module installed.
>
>
> [14934] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
> [14934] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.57
>
> and
>
> [14934] dbg: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Pl
I have Net::DNS module installed.
[14934] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
[14934] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0.57
and
[14934] dbg: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL from
@INC
[14934] dbg: plugin: registered
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa5822f0)
Jon
Yes this functionality has been built in since SA version 3.0 (and via
an additional 'plugin' since 2.6.?4?).
Make sure you are using network tests, Net::DNS perl module is installed
and the URI-RBL plugin is enabled in the *.pre files which are located
in the same place as local.cf (normally
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Mark G. Thomas wrote:
> Does anyone have suggestions other than discontinuing use of the
> URIBL or using a much lower score? Is there some way to fix this
> code to make it more resilient to Lotus Notes text mangling? Is
> there some easy way I can exclude just the one domai
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
> uridnsbl_skip_domain ng.com
{raspberry}
--
John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873
> From: Mark G. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a problem with incorrect URIBL hits on incoming forwarded
messages
> that have been mangled by Lotus Notes.
>
> I have a customer with the domain name "Yimaging.com".
> (Not really "Y").
>
> "ng.com" is on the URIBL bla
Logan Shaw wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, DAve wrote:
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Dave, you might need to update the 'root/servers/@' file. IIRC, a
couple of root servers have changed in the past few years.
We replace the @ file with one of our own on every server. I contains
just our dns servers and ou
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, DAve wrote:
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Dave, you might need to update the 'root/servers/@' file. IIRC, a couple of
root servers have changed in the past few years.
We replace the @ file with one of our own on every server. I contains just
our dns servers and our own caches.
Sil
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
DAve wrote:
[snip]
If it happens again I'll have some logs, provided I catch it in time,
dnscache makes logs like bunnies make more bunnies.
Until then I'm inclined to think it was a resource issue or anomaly on
my system rather than an issue with SA or dnscache. I run d
DAve wrote:
[snip]
If it happens again I'll have some logs, provided I catch it in time,
dnscache makes logs like bunnies make more bunnies.
Until then I'm inclined to think it was a resource issue or anomaly on
my system rather than an issue with SA or dnscache. I run dnscache on
all my we
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 8:05:04 AM, DAve DAve wrote:
I had no logging running on dnscache before so I don't *know* what was
happening. I re-enabled logging and the issue went away. To be specific
I changed my run file from
exec setuidgid Gdnslog multilog -*
to
exec setuid
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 7:53:45 AM, Rick Macdougall wrote:
Unlikely to be a dnscache issue. I run over 10 SA servers, all with
local djb dnscaches.
Aha, but do you use Linux or FreeBSD?
I can't remember the details but I remember a FreeBSD/SA issue
recently.
Hi,
Both
On Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 8:05:04 AM, DAve DAve wrote:
> I had no logging running on dnscache before so I don't *know* what was
> happening. I re-enabled logging and the issue went away. To be specific
> I changed my run file from
> exec setuidgid Gdnslog multilog -*
> to
> exec setuidgid Gdnslo
On Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 7:53:45 AM, Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> On Monday, August 7, 2006, 1:56:41 PM, DAve DAve wrote:
>>> In frustration I edited /etc/resolv.conf and removed 127.0.0.1, URI
>>> lookups are completing and MailScanner is blasting through the queues on
>>> both
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2006, 1:56:41 PM, DAve DAve wrote:
In frustration I edited /etc/resolv.conf and removed 127.0.0.1, URI
lookups are completing and MailScanner is blasting through the queues on
both machines exceedingly fast now.
No idea what could have possibly changed, d
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2006, 1:56:41 PM, DAve DAve wrote:
In frustration I edited /etc/resolv.conf and removed 127.0.0.1, URI
lookups are completing and MailScanner is blasting through the queues on
both machines exceedingly fast now.
No idea what could have possibly changed, d
On Monday, August 7, 2006, 1:56:41 PM, DAve DAve wrote:
> In frustration I edited /etc/resolv.conf and removed 127.0.0.1, URI
> lookups are completing and MailScanner is blasting through the queues on
> both machines exceedingly fast now.
> No idea what could have possibly changed, dnscache is no
DAve wrote:
DAve wrote:
Richard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
SURBL. I did a test,
...
I should have included this in the debug output.
[23441] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
[2344
DAve wrote:
Richard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
SURBL. I did a test,
...
I should have included this in the debug output.
[23441] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
[23441] dbg: dns:
Richard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
SURBL. I did a test,
...
I should have included this in the debug output.
[23441] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
[23441] dbg: dns: Net::DNS vers
DAve wrote:
DAve wrote:
Good morning,
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
SURBL. I did a test,
host -tTXT test.uribl.com.multi.uribl.com
and got the proper response. I also ran
spamassassin -D < testemail.txt
which is a message with a URI known in the URIBL li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
>> I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and
>> SURBL. I did a test,
...
> I should have included this in the debug output.
>
> [23441] dbg: dns: is Net::DNS::Resolver available? yes
> [23441] dbg: dns: Net::DNS version: 0
DAve wrote:
Good morning,
I noticed this morning that I am no longer hitting any URIBL and SURBL.
I did a test,
host -tTXT test.uribl.com.multi.uribl.com
and got the proper response. I also ran
spamassassin -D < testemail.txt
which is a message with a URI known in the URIBL list and it pro
Jeff Chan wrote:
> Thanks. americanbroadcastdx.com was never on any SURBLs, so
> it's probably the bug. Please consider upgrading to 3.1 or
> possibly even 3.0.5 as this may fix the bug:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3997
>
> The developers will know for sure a
On Wednesday, December 7, 2005, 8:31:06 AM, Brian Leyton wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>>
>> OK I can't remember if that one has the bug fix or not. 3.1
>> definitely does.
>>
>> What was the specific FP domain?
> Here's the scoring section of the SA report:
> Content analysis details: (5.5 poi
Jeff Chan wrote:
>
> OK I can't remember if that one has the bug fix or not. 3.1
> definitely does.
>
> What was the specific FP domain?
Here's the scoring section of the SA report:
Content analysis details: (5.5 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
On Wednesday, December 7, 2005, 8:14:43 AM, Brian Leyton wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> What version of SpamAssassin are you using? There is a bug
>> in 3.0.x that can cause intermittent errors like this.
> "Spamassassin -V" reports:
> SpamAssassin version 3.0.4
> running on Perl version 5.8.6
Jeff Chan wrote:
> What version of SpamAssassin are you using? There is a bug
> in 3.0.x that can cause intermittent errors like this.
"Spamassassin -V" reports:
SpamAssassin version 3.0.4
running on Perl version 5.8.6
Brian Leyton
IT Manager
Commercial Petroleum Equipment
On Tuesday, December 6, 2005, 1:26:32 PM, Brian Leyton wrote:
> I'm relatively new to SpamAssassin, but I've managed to get it working well
> in conjunction with MimeDefang. I'm having a strange problem though, which
> I hope someone can help me figure out.
> I'm on a hobby mailing list, and occa
Brian Leyton wrote:
> I'm relatively new to SpamAssassin, but I've managed to get it working well
> in conjunction with MimeDefang. I'm having a strange problem though, which
> I hope someone can help me figure out.
>
> I'm on a hobby mailing list, and occasionally emails to this list are being
>
Just to post back to the group on this one. It turns out the reason why
these were not working is because the user that amavisd ran as didn't have
permissions to see the directory that contained Net::DNS::Resolver For some
reason cpan installed it with root only permissions.
After I fixed the che
jdow wrote the following on 26/08/2005 22:08:
Ask an amavisd-new expert. It's already part of SpamAssassin. Perhaps
amavisd-new overrides some of the SpamAssassin configurations? Good
luck with it.
{^_^}
From: "Thomas Deliduka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But what configuration do I need to do to add
Ask an amavisd-new expert. It's already part of SpamAssassin. Perhaps
amavisd-new overrides some of the SpamAssassin configurations? Good
luck with it.
{^_^}
From: "Thomas Deliduka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But what configuration do I need to do to add it?
On 8/26/05 5:01 PM this was written:
Fr
From: "Thomas Deliduka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I couldn't find an answer to this in the archives. My apologies if this is
there.
I ran a test on a spam (spamassassin -t ) and within the rules that
matched it outputted these:
0.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
3
But what configuration do I need to do to add it?
On 8/26/05 5:01 PM this was written:
> From: "Thomas Deliduka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I couldn't find an answer to this in the archives. My apologies if this is
>> there.
>>
>> I ran a test on a spam (spamassassin -t ) and within the rules tha
Check out http://www.uribl.com/. Click on the "Usage" link on the left.
Cheers,
Phil
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
> -Original Message-
> From: Ron McKeating [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 June 2005 12:03
> To: SPAMASSASSIN
> Subject: uri
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:02:14PM +0100, Ben Wylie wrote:
> For some reason I have had to put:
> loadpluginMail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL
> into my 25_uribl.cf and my custom uribl file to get this to work.
You definitely wouldn't need it twice, and you shouldn't be editing the
default c
Rodney Green wrote:
Hello,
Where are URIBL scores configured?
The same place all the scores are configured.
The defaults are in /usr/share/spamassassin/50_scores.cf
Your over-rides should probably go in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf.
You can edit the defaults, but if you edit 50_scores, it wil
I added this to /usr/local/share/spamassassin/25_uribl.cf, now it working fine.
Thanks Jeff.
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Monday, October 18, 2004, 12:27:59 AM, Khalid Waheed wrote:
The original message and test result is given below,
I'm wondering how to improve the score of this messag
On Monday, October 18, 2004, 4:18:54 AM, Asif Iqbal wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 02:14:27AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> I am using SA 3.0. So I add this to a new file and name in spamcop.cf ?
>> urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org.A 64
>> headerURIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl(
On Monday, October 18, 2004, 12:27:59 AM, Khalid Waheed wrote:
> The original message and test result is given below,
> I'm wondering how to improve the score of this message which is sure
> spam and listed in URIBL.
> The score of the message is always 3.2 with or without bayes.
>
101 - 149 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
