Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-05 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 14:03 -0500, Robert Braver wrote: > On Sunday, October 4, 2009, 1:55:55 PM, RW wrote: > > > Right, although I doubt this list is going to be much use for > > SpamAssassin. With zen being so popular, I think everything that can > > be caught with it will get caught at the smt

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-05 Thread Henrik K
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:45:40AM +0100, Ned Slider wrote: > Mike Cardwell wrote: >> >> I use SpamHaus from SpamAssassin rather than directly from my MTA >> mainly because I don't want that mail to avoid the bayes auto-learning. >> If I ever find the service running out of cpu cycles, I might co

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-05 Thread Ned Slider
Mike Cardwell wrote: On 04/10/2009 22:16, mouss wrote: why "lastexternal" ? would you expect ham traffic from those IPs? and want to loose deeper header parsing? Right, although I doubt this list is going to be much use for SpamAssassin. With zen being so popular, I think everything that can

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-05 Thread Mike Cardwell
On 04/10/2009 22:16, mouss wrote: why "lastexternal" ? would you expect ham traffic from those IPs? and want to loose deeper header parsing? Right, although I doubt this list is going to be much use for SpamAssassin. With zen being so popular, I think everything that can be caught with it wil

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread mouss
RW a écrit : > On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:53:34 +0200 > Yet Another Ninja wrote: > > >> why "lastexternal" ? >> would you expect ham traffic from those IPs? and want to loose deeper >> header parsing? > > Right, although I doubt this list is going to be much use for > SpamAssassin. With zen being

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> On Sunday, October 4, 2009, 1:55:55 PM, RW wrote: > > R> Right, although I doubt this list is going to be much use for > R> SpamAssassin. With zen being so popular, I think everything that can > R> be caught with it will get caught at the smtp level . With SBL you get > R> additional deep hits

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread Robert Braver
On Sunday, October 4, 2009, 1:55:55 PM, RW wrote: R> Right, although I doubt this list is going to be much use for R> SpamAssassin. With zen being so popular, I think everything that can R> be caught with it will get caught at the smtp level . With SBL you get R> additional deep hits from spammer

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread RW
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:53:34 +0200 Yet Another Ninja wrote: > why "lastexternal" ? > would you expect ham traffic from those IPs? and want to loose deeper > header parsing? Right, although I doubt this list is going to be much use for SpamAssassin. With zen being so popular, I think everythi

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread Benny Pedersen
On søn 04 okt 2009 15:20:09 CEST, LuKreme wrote # CSS is the Snowshoe Block List: http://www.spamhaus.org/css/ header RCVD_IN_CSS eval:check_rbl('zen-lastexternal', 'zen.spamhaus.org.', '127.0.0.3') you make another dns lookup here compared to what rule i maked :) -- xpoint

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread Benny Pedersen
On søn 04 okt 2009 12:31:37 CEST, Mike Cardwell wrote SpamHaus announced a new list a couple of days back - http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=646 According to that page it returns results of 127.0.0.3 I just took a quick look at 20_dnsbl_tests.cf and it doesn't seem to include it

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread Yet Another Ninja
On 10/4/2009 3:20 PM, LuKreme wrote: On 4-Oct-2009, at 04:31, Mike Cardwell wrote: SpamHaus announced a new list a couple of days back - http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=646 According to that page it returns results of 127.0.0.3 I just took a quick look at 20_dnsbl_tests.cf and it d

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread LuKreme
On 4-Oct-2009, at 04:31, Mike Cardwell wrote: SpamHaus announced a new list a couple of days back - http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=646 According to that page it returns results of 127.0.0.3 I just took a quick look at 20_dnsbl_tests.cf and it doesn't seem to include it yet. Curre

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread Mike Cardwell
Matt Kettler wrote: SpamHaus announced a new list a couple of days back - http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=646 According to that page it returns results of 127.0.0.3 I just took a quick look at 20_dnsbl_tests.cf and it doesn't seem to include it yet. Currently we have: RCVD_IN_SBL -

Re: New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread Matt Kettler
Mike Cardwell wrote: > SpamHaus announced a new list a couple of days back - > http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=646 > > According to that page it returns results of 127.0.0.3 > > I just took a quick look at 20_dnsbl_tests.cf and it doesn't seem to > include it yet. Currently we have: > >

New spamhaus list not included

2009-10-04 Thread Mike Cardwell
SpamHaus announced a new list a couple of days back - http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=646 According to that page it returns results of 127.0.0.3 I just took a quick look at 20_dnsbl_tests.cf and it doesn't seem to include it yet. Currently we have: RCVD_IN_SBL - 127.0.0.2 RCVD_IN_