Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> Wow. almost a dozen in very little time. Given how well bayes is
> working, I might just disable the habeus mark test.
Then let's create a ruleset for the Habeas violator Pharmacourt and
score it high enough for Habeas to be useless:
--- 20_uri_tests.cf
uri WWW_PHARMACO
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 02:30:57PM -0600, Chris Thielen wrote:
> Chris Santerre said:
>
> > I was wondering if possibly in the future, SA could check the URI
> > links against RBLs? They all seem to be using the same servers to host now
> > after they are blacklisted. This way they still get
Chris Thielen wrote:
>
> I just wanted to share my success using your hosted_in rbl rules. So far,
> it's hit about 2 spam per day on my primary email account. One of those
> would have been a false negative, had it not been for your mod :)
Thank you for testing it! :-)
I'm still doing some exp
Since spammers often host their spamvertised sites at spamfriendly ISPs
(e. g. Chinanet), I've been doing some tests with "hat-checking"
spamvertised URLs.
After resolving the URL hostname, the resulting IPs get RBL-checked
against *.blackholes.us to find if they belong to a known spamfriendly
IS
