Ahhh, so this isn't a standard format for all RBLs? By the way, as a programmer who runs an IRC channel for a 3D Engine (TrueVision3D, Buy today!) I can say that as a rule, programmers tend to give the new guy a LOT of flack, especially when asking questions when they obviously know nothing about the subject (ie, me. Until yesterday, I didn't have the slightest clue how RBLs work.) You guys have been more than gracious, infinitely patient, and very accommodating. Most of my questions weren't even directly about SpamAssassin, but you guys have helped me through getting a very good feature added to my filter app. In appreciation, I'll be donating $50 to the ASF. Thank you very much for the hand-holding for the past two days! It's too bad more open source projects don't have such patient communities.
-Aaron Boyles -----Original Message----- From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:09 PM To: Aaron Boyles Cc: SpamAssassin Subject: Re: Using Dig for RBL lookups. Aaron Boyles wrote: > Ah, List, Matt, and Dallas, thanks all. Used all of them to get the > answer I was looking for. > > So simply parsing the the "Answer" section to see if there was a > 127.0.0.2 response should verify for me, it seems. > > I also vaguely remember reading something about .4 and .6 responses as > well. Anyone care to refresh my memory as to what they mean? Assuming you are querying against sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org: 2 - SBL listed 4 - XBL listed 6 - both SBL and XBL listed http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/howtouse.html
