Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

Ned Slider wrote: Wolfgang Zeikat wrote: Ned Slider wrote: For those using RHEL5/CentOS5 and wanting to update, We use Scientific Linux 5 which is a re-compiled RHEL 5 *erm*, actually it's Scientific Linux 4 (RHEL 4), the rest is true tho ;) - with Dag's 3.56 rpm installed. I

Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 18:22 -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote: On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 11:16:03PM +0100, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote: Could you describe more elaborately how you did that? You may wish to take a look at cpan2rpm, fwiw. deprecated. look at cpan2dist if you are running perl 5.10 --

Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

Bill Landry a écrit : This issue has been resolved. Thanks to Justin Mason and Gisle Aas (HTML::Parser guy) for finding the fix. The resolution is to update HTML::Parser to the latest version and then restart SA. Thanks for the heads up. it indeed works (HTML::Parser 3.59).

Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

mouss wrote: Bill Landry a écrit : This issue has been resolved. Thanks to Justin Mason and Gisle Aas (HTML::Parser guy) for finding the fix. The resolution is to update HTML::Parser to the latest version and then restart SA. Thanks for the heads up. it indeed works (HTML::Parser 3.59).

Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

Ned Slider wrote: Thanks for the heads up. it indeed works (HTML::Parser 3.59). For those using RHEL5/CentOS5 and wanting to update, We use Scientific Linux 5 which is a re-compiled RHEL 5 - with Dag's 3.56 rpm installed. I installed HTML::Parser 3.59 there from CPAN (with local make)

Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

Wolfgang Zeikat wrote: Ned Slider wrote: Thanks for the heads up. it indeed works (HTML::Parser 3.59). For those using RHEL5/CentOS5 and wanting to update, We use Scientific Linux 5 which is a re-compiled RHEL 5 - with Dag's 3.56 rpm installed. I installed HTML::Parser 3.59 there from

Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 11:16:03PM +0100, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote: Could you describe more elaborately how you did that? You may wish to take a look at cpan2rpm, fwiw. -- Randomly Selected Tagline: ... Either this man is suffering from serious brain damage, or the new vacuum cleaner's

Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

Bill Landry wrote: mouss wrote: Bill Landry wrote: I've posted a short pharma spam message to: http://www.inetmsg.com/spam.txt and debug output to: http://www.inetmsg.com/sa-debug.txt It displays a single URI linked line in an e-mail client that only displays: Please visit our shop.

Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

I've posted a short pharma spam message to: http://www.inetmsg.com/spam.txt and debug output to: http://www.inetmsg.com/sa-debug.txt It displays a single URI linked line in an e-mail client that only displays: Please visit our shop. There seems to be something about the URI in the message

Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

Bill Landry wrote: I've posted a short pharma spam message to: http://www.inetmsg.com/spam.txt and debug output to: http://www.inetmsg.com/sa-debug.txt It displays a single URI linked line in an e-mail client that only displays: Please visit our shop. There seems to be something about the

Re: Single URI spam not checked against URIBLs

mouss wrote: Bill Landry wrote: I've posted a short pharma spam message to: http://www.inetmsg.com/spam.txt and debug output to: http://www.inetmsg.com/sa-debug.txt It displays a single URI linked line in an e-mail client that only displays: Please visit our shop. There seems to be