On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Antony Stone wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2016 at 13:16:57, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing admins
> > > of a [URIBL_BLOCKED] issue.
>
> create and install a logwatch service that scans /var/log/maillog
> for lines containing "URIBL_BLOCKED" - this involves a two line config
> file and a scanner (a few lines of Perl).
The problem I see with this, though, is that you have to know that
URIBL_BLOCKED is something sinister, and needs to be flagged as a problem,
to
bother doing this.
You get that if URIBL_BLOCKED hits on a ham and you look at the rule
descriptions on that message.
Dammit... hits on a **SPAM** and you look at the rule descriptions.
(well, if you're including the descriptions for ham as well my original
comment would be correct too...)
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
People think they're trading chaos for order [by ceding more and
more power to the Government], but they're just trading normal
human evil for the really dangerous organized kind of evil, the
kind that simply does not give a shit. Only bureaucrats can give
you true evil. -- Larry Correia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 days until the 72nd anniversary of D-Day
