Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Hello SpamAssassin Users,
>> I'm pleased to announce a new type of RBL for blocking messages based
>> on spam domains contained in message bodies called SURBL.
>> Unlike other RBLs, the Spam URI RBL (SURBL) is not used to block spam
>> server IP addresses, but
Hi!
Hello SpamAssassin Users,
I'm pleased to announce a new type of RBL for blocking messages
based on spam domains contained in message bodies called SURBL.
Unlike other RBLs, the Spam URI RBL (SURBL) is not used to block
spam server IP addresses, but instead to block messages based on
Ouch, seems
On Monday, April 12, 2004, 4:58:08 PM, David Funk wrote:
> This looks like a poor test choice on the part of the authors.
> It's failing because that addres "[211.147.224.30]" is no longer in
> the sc.surbl.org list.
> They should use the specific "test" address that is guaranteed
> to be there. T
On Monday, April 12, 2004, 5:25:55 AM, Richard Humphrey wrote:
[snip]
> This looks like a great service! However, after downloading, unzipping
> and untarring, I got the following error doing perl Makefile.PL:
> Warning: prerequisite LWP 0 not found
[snip]
> I am having the same problem. Can an
On Friday, April 9, 2004, 8:59:15 AM, Sandy S wrote:
> This looks like a great service! However, after downloading, unzipping and
> untarring, I got the following error doing perl Makefile.PL:
> Warning: prerequisite LWP 0 not found
> I may be dense, but what's LWP 0 and where do I find it? I br
On Friday, April 9, 2004, 9:53:37 AM, Adam Denenberg wrote:
> two questions for this.
> 1) Do you need to subscribe to spamcop to use this ?
No, though I would certainly encourage anyone to use SpamCop to
report spams, including the parsing and reporting it provides as
input for SURBL. We then g
On Friday, April 9, 2004, 12:09:12 PM, Shaun Erickson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I have had quite a few come in this morning that Chris' rules hit, but the
>> new SURBL did not hit.. I'll keep both running for a while, and see how
>> things shake out!
> You're right - I put BigEvil bac
As Steve pointed out off list, the update has not propagated to
all the SourceForge mirrors yet. Please check for the updated
version later at a mirror near you. ;)
Jeff C.
__
On Thursday, April 8, 2004, 4:48:17 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> Eric Kolve has just issued a fix for the test su
Hi Steve,
Eric Kolve has just issued a fix for the test suite in his 0.09
version of SpamCopURI:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamcopuri/
Please give it a try and let us know what kind of results
you get. :D
Jeff C.
__
On Thursday, April 8, 2004, 4:29:58 PM, Steve Wakelin wrote:
> Jeff,
On Thursday, April 8, 2004, 5:01:48 PM, Matthew Trent wrote:
> On Thursday 08 April 2004 4:56 pm, Rick Macdougall wrote:
>> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> > Hi Steve,
>> > Eric Kolve has just issued a fix for the test suite in his 0.09
>> > version of SpamCopURI:
>> >
>> >http://sourceforge.net/projects/s
On Thursday, April 8, 2004, 11:59:30 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> I am SOO happy to see this!!! So what does this mean to the future of
> BigEvil??? I'm not sure just yet. This is what I have wanted for so long. I
> have done BigEvil because we didn't have any other option. But now we do :)
>
On Thursday, April 8, 2004, 11:18:14 AM, Matthew Trent wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 April 2004 06:22 pm, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> Unlike other RBLs, the Spam URI RBL (SURBL) is not used to block
>> spam server IP addresses, but instead to block messages based on
>> URI domains previously reported to SpamCop
12 matches
Mail list logo
