Just that nobody forgets: What about false positives? 158.194.144.219 apparently belogs to Palacky University in Olomouc,Czechia. This IP is now wrongfully listed in SURBL!
I'll post that problem to the SURBL-List as well, I think. Jeff C. certainly doesn't want to harm innocent bystanders... Dirk > In an older episode (Friday, 12. August 2005 01:46), Dallas L. Engelken > wrote: >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: wolfgang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 6:36 PM >> > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> > Subject: Re: Phishing IP listed in URIBL and SURBL, but not >> > triggering URI rules >> > >> > In an older episode (Friday, 12. August 2005 01:18), Dallas >> > L. Engelken wrote: >> > >> > > Looks like we agree with surbl.. >> > > >> > > # host -tTXT 158.194.144.219.multi.uribl.com >> > > 158.194.144.219.multi.uribl.com descriptive text "Listed on >> > [black] - >> > > See http://lookup.uribl.com/?domain=158.194.144.219"; >> > >> > Yes, but - as Dirk pointed out - that does *not* result in SA >> recognizing >> > 219.194.144.158 as listed - only the surbl lookup cgi handles that >> "reversed dotted decimal" as a signal that >> > 219.194.144.158 is listed. In other words, that entry is >> > useless for SA. Correct me if I am wrong here. >> > >> >> Hrmmm?? What version are you running? Mine gets it right. > > 3.0.4-2 - the version that debian linux currently provides - and the > current official SA release AFAIK. > >> I know > <snip> >> gets it right, as does SA 3.1.x of which has been >> getting it right since very early in the 3.1.0 trunk. > > SA' s official release isn't "bleeding edge" enuf then, apparently. > Thanks for the clarification. > > cheers, > > wolfgang
