On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 11:29:49PM -0500, Bill McGonigle wrote: > I think what I would really need is Habeas to setup a different rbl > server with _legit_ senders, and then my rule would be OK. As an
Yeah, that's the HUL (not the same as HIL). :)
> aside, what stops spammers from forging legit Habeas senders?
Nothing. If it's forged, Habeas is supposed to go suing. It's all part
of the business model.
> So I'm guessing there's some code behind
> rbleval:check_rbl('hil', 'hil.habeas.com.')
> that does that? The rules themselves don't express this behavior,
> right?
Hrm. You're running 2.5x? The "correct" behavior was added for 2.60:
header HABEAS_VIOLATOR eval:check_rbl_swe('hil',
'sa-hil.habeas.com.')
then check_rbl_swe does the right thing. Hence why you don't see anything
in the code or rules about it. :)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
#else /* !STDSTDIO */ /* The big, slow, and stupid way */
-- Larry Wall in str.c from the perl source code
pgphO9DX6M2Ts.pgp
Description: PGP signature
