On Friday, July 16, 2004, 4:17:33 AM, John Wilcock wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 04:09:26 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote: >> Chris' answer is reasonable that the 3.0 code hopefully may >> treat SURBLs like other RBLs in that skip_rbl_checks may work >> as expected. Reading the source code would probably reveal >> this if so.
> I would assume that it is not too late to get this corrected in 3.0 > final. Any 3.0-pre users care to check, and file a bugzilla report if > necessary? The lack of response to skip_rbl_checks was cited for SpamCopURI which is a 2.63 program. We don't know whether it's broken in 3.0 but suspect not, assuming some generalized RBL code was used to handle the RBLs in urirhsbl, etc. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
