On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 12:46 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:39:15AM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> > Ok, here's one that does fail:
> > under 3.2.0:
> > [16543] dbg: uridnsbl: domain "theauthenticmemento.com" listed
> > (URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK): 127.0.0.2
> [...]
> > Under 3.1.8:
> [...]
> > [19829] dbg: uridnsbl: domain "theauthenticmemento.com" listed
> > (URIBL_BLACK): 127.0.0.2
> > [19829] dbg: uridnsbl: query for theauthenticmemento.com took 2 seconds
> > to look up (multi.uribl.com.:theauthenticmemento.com)
> > ...
>
> Based on your debug quoting, 3.2 does not show a URIBL_BLACK hit, it
> shows a hit for a different rule, URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK.
>
Well, that doesn't show up in the list either...
Is that because the rule is duplicated in 25_uribl.cf and 72_active.cf?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] updates_spamassassin_org]$ sudo grep URIBL_BLACK *
25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_BLACK multi.uribl.com. A 2
25_uribl.cf:body URIBL_BLACK
eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_BLACK')
25_uribl.cf:describe URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL
blacklist
25_uribl.cf:tflags URIBL_BLACK net
25_uribl.cf:#reuse URIBL_BLACK
50_scores.cf:score URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK 0 # n=1 n=3
50_scores.cf:score URIBL_BLACK 0 1.961 0 1.955 # n=0 n=2
50_scores.cf~:score URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK 0 # n=1 n=3
50_scores.cf~:score URIBL_BLACK 0 1.961 0 1.955 # n=0 n=2
72_active.cf:##{ URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK
72_active.cf:urirhssub URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK multi.uribl.com. A
2
72_active.cf:body URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK
eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK')
72_active.cf:describe URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK Contains an URI listed in
[black] uribl.com
72_active.cf:tflags URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK net
72_active.cf:##} URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK
since the score for URIBL_RHS_URIBL_BLACK is 0, but it still fired for
that one, it looks like a problem. Let me remove that rule from 72 and
see what happens...
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX
Austin Energy
http://www.austinenergy.com
