Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On 2018-02-15 (02:10 MST), Tobi wrote: > > and does your bind server use other forward servers? Nope. It is its own thing. Nor forwarders. Dunno what the issue was, but it was transient AFAICT. -- Forever was over. All the sands had fallen. The great race between entropy and energy had been r

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:06:40 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >Or if you like using your ISP's servers, most DNS server software > >lets you forward by default but make exceptions for specific > >domains. > although possible, this does not make sense IMHO. It makes a lot of sense, IMO.

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:05:54 -0800 (PST) John Hardin wrote: This detail always gets glossed over: set up a local NON-FORWARDING resolver. If you set up a local resolver and it just forwards requests to your ISP's DNS servers, you have not materially changed the problem. On 15.02.18 09:57,

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:05:54 -0800 (PST) John Hardin wrote: > This detail always gets glossed over: set up a local NON-FORWARDING > resolver. > If you set up a local resolver and it just forwards requests to your > ISP's DNS servers, you have not materially changed the problem. Or if you like

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On 15 Feb 2018, at 4:10 (-0500), Tobi wrote: Am 15.02.2018 um 02:35 schrieb @lbutlr: On 2018-02-14 (09:55 MST), Tobi wrote: Am 14.02.2018 um 17:16 schrieb @lbutlr: I can't imagine why i'd be over limit, my mail server is tiny. its not the mailserver that got blocked by limits, but the dns

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On 15 Feb 2018, at 4:10 (-0500), Tobi wrote: Am 15.02.2018 um 02:35 schrieb @lbutlr: On 2018-02-14 (09:55 MST), Tobi wrote: Am 14.02.2018 um 17:16 schrieb @lbutlr: I can't imagine why i'd be over limit, my mail server is tiny. its not the mailserver that got blocked by limits, but the dns

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

Am 15.02.2018 um 02:35 schrieb @lbutlr: > On 2018-02-14 (09:55 MST), Tobi wrote: >> >> Am 14.02.2018 um 17:16 schrieb @lbutlr: >>> I can't imagine why i'd be over limit, my mail server is tiny. >> >> its not the mailserver that got blocked by limits, but the dns resolver >> your mailserver uses!

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On 2018-02-14 (09:55 MST), Tobi wrote: > > Am 14.02.2018 um 17:16 schrieb @lbutlr: >> I can't imagine why i'd be over limit, my mail server is tiny. > > its not the mailserver that got blocked by limits, but the dns resolver > your mailserver uses! I use my own DNS on Bind 9.12, however the blo

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Tobi wrote: Am 14.02.2018 um 17:16 schrieb @lbutlr: I can't imagine why i'd be over limit, my mail server is tiny. its not the mailserver that got blocked by limits, but the dns resolver your mailserver uses! If you're using a 3rd party resolver (ex the ones from your p

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

Am 14.02.2018 um 17:16 schrieb @lbutlr: > I can't imagine why i'd be over limit, my mail server is tiny. its not the mailserver that got blocked by limits, but the dns resolver your mailserver uses! If you're using a 3rd party resolver (ex the ones from your provider or 8.8.8.8) you can hit the

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On 2/14/2018 11:16 AM, @lbutlr wrote: Ah, I didn't know URIBL was a blacklist, I thought it was being used as a generic abbreviation variant of RBL. I can't imagine why i'd be over limit, my mail server is tiny. It's confusing, I agree.  See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMDEV-267?j

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On 2018-02-13 (14:45 MST), Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 13.02.2018 um 21:21 schrieb @lbutlr: >> 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was >> blocked. >> See >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklis

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

If you read that informational spamassassin wiki page referenced in that message you'd know that it has nothing to do with querying a Russian RBL. That Russian URI is what the query to URIBL was asking. So your use of URIBL (via spamassassin) hit a threshold and was blocked. Read that spamassass

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

Hi, Note that on at least Ubuntu from some time ago, unbound was automatically configured to take the dns servers that were received from an upstream server during DHCP, and configure those as forwarders. Can you show us output of: unbound-control list_forwards Kind regards, Tom On 13-1

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

I just want to call this out as the critical detail in all the back-and-forth: The main thing with setting up a DNS server for DNSBL lookups is not "caching", it is "non-forwarding". Take a look at your unbound settings and make sure it is doing all of the lookups itself and not forwarding

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

On 10/13/2017 08:45 AM, AJ Weber wrote: On 10/13/2017 9:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: next time make a notice in your first post that you don#t have a serious mailserver but "maybe because I have a DHCP address from a major ISP and that's a problem" OK, I can do that, but there isn't anything i

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

On 10/13/2017 9:45 AM, AJ Weber wrote: On 10/13/2017 9:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: next time make a notice in your first post that you don#t have a serious mailserver but "maybe because I have a DHCP address from a major ISP and that's a problem" OK, I can do that, but there isn't anything in

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

On 10/13/2017 9:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: next time make a notice in your first post that you don#t have a serious mailserver but "maybe because I have a DHCP address from a major ISP and that's a problem" OK, I can do that, but there isn't anything in the troubleshooting for DNSBL regardin

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

I put the following in my local.cf.  This does not work? dns_available yes # - REDIRECT DNS LOOKUPS TO LOCAL "unbound" service to avoid RBL bans dns_server 127.0.0.1 On 10/13/2017 8:48 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 13.10.2017 um 14:40 schrieb AJ Weber: I guess this qualifies as a newbie quest

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

On 10/13/2017 8:57 AM, David Jones wrote: On 10/13/2017 07:47 AM, Markus Clardy wrote: URIBL_BLOCKED is in reference to multi.uribl.com . --   - Markus To disable queries to multi.uribl.com, put this in your local.cf or equivalent in /etc/mail/spamassassin: score UR

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

On 10/13/2017 08:01 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 13.10.2017 um 14:57 schrieb David Jones: To disable queries to multi.uribl.com, put this in your local.cf or equivalent in /etc/mail/spamassassin: score URIBL_BLACK 0 score URIBL_GREY 0 score URIBL_RED 0 Based on my mail flow and other RBLs, I

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

On 10/13/2017 07:47 AM, Markus Clardy wrote: URIBL_BLOCKED is in reference to multi.uribl.com . On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:40 PM, AJ Weber > wrote: I guess this qualifies as a newbie question...I've been running SA for a while, but have

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED - which one?

URIBL_BLOCKED is in reference to multi.uribl.com. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:40 PM, AJ Weber wrote: > I guess this qualifies as a newbie question...I've been running SA for a > while, but haven't really dug into some of the workings... > > I occasionally see the URIBL_BLOCKED notice in some of my

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

On 5/19/2017 1:59 PM, David Jones wrote: Would it be beneficial to add a local.cf config option to allow SA to specify a different DNS server rather than what the OS is using in /etc/resolv.conf? I believe there is also an idea in bugzilla to specify this on a per RBL basis. I can't find it b

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

>Would it be beneficial to add a local.cf config option to allow SA to >specify a different DNS server rather than what the OS is using in >/etc/resolv.conf? Nevermind. David Funk just posted about "dns_server" that I wasn't able to find earlier. Seems like setting that would be the best option

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

David Jones wrote: Would it be beneficial to add a local.cf config option to allow SA to specify a different DNS server rather than what the OS is using in /etc/resolv.conf? IIRC it does, and a quick scan of the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf man page turned up: dns_server ip-addr-port (de

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

>From: Robert Kudyba >> Wiki page updated and simplified. >> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver >For Fedora, since NetworkMangler (as many are fond to call it) is enabled >by default it might be worthwhile to mention this comment at, but note that >/etc/resolv.conf will be

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

On Fri, 19 May 2017, John Hardin wrote: On Thu, 18 May 2017, Rob McEwen wrote: In many cases, they explain to me that their settings got auto-overwritten by their hoster - who just HAD to switch their resolv.conf file back to 8.8.8.8 cron. job. Wouldn't the SA config parameter "dns_server

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Rob McEwen wrote: In many cases, they explain to me that their settings got auto-overwritten by their hoster - who just HAD to switch their resolv.conf file back to 8.8.8.8 cron. job. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impse

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

> > Wiki page updated and simplified. > > https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver For Fedora, since NetworkMangler (as many are fond to call it) is enabled by default it might be worthwhile to mention this comment at, but note that /etc/resolv.conf will be managed by dnssec-trigger

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas   >On 18.05.17 17:05, Robert Kudyba wrote: >> The link to http://njabl.org/rsync.html is broken at the moment. >njabl.org is dead four (4) years >On 18.05.17 14:39, John Hardin wrote: >>I think this part of the wiki page may not be stressed stongly enough: >[...]

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

On 18.05.17 17:05, Robert Kudyba wrote: The link to http://njabl.org/rsync.html is broken at the moment. njabl.org is dead four (4) years On 18.05.17 14:39, John Hardin wrote: I think this part of the wiki page may not be stressed stongly enough: [...] /* Disable forwarding for DNSBL querie

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

On 5/18/2017 5:46 PM, David Jones wrote: it should be pretty clear now to not use a forwarding DNS server locally and do not point the server to another DNS server in /etc/resolv.conf. Thanks David! Some may be interested to know at least 15% of my entire labor "overhead" for running invaluem

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 21:46 +, David Jones wrote: > > From: John Hardin > > I think this part of the wiki page may not be stressed stongly > > enough: > > Non-forwarding > > If you have a large ISP or are using large public DNS provider(s) > > it is  > > recommended you not forward mail-relate

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

On 18 May 2017, at 17:05, Robert Kudyba wrote: On May 18, 2017, at 4:41 PM, David Jones wrote: From: Robert Kudyba Am 18.05.2017 um 22:30 schrieb Reindl Harald: "with working dnsmasq" says all - DNSMASQ DON'T DO RECURSION - IT CAN#T you are forwarding to some other nameserver and you are

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

>From: John Hardin >I think this part of the wiki page may not be stressed stongly enough: >Non-forwarding >If you have a large ISP or are using large public DNS provider(s) it is >recommended you not forward mail-related DNS traffic through their DNS >servers (though non-mail DNS traffic fro

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Robert Kudyba wrote: Am 18.05.2017 um 22:30 schrieb Reindl Harald: "with working dnsmasq" says all - DNSMASQ DON'T DO RECURSION - IT CAN#T you are forwarding to some other nameserver and you are not the only one But the nameserver I’m forwarding to is in our university.

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

On May 18, 2017 5:11 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote: Am 18.05.2017 um 23:05 schrieb Robert Kudyba: > > On May 18, 2017, at 4:41 PM, David Jones > djo...@ena.com>> wrote: >> >> From: Robert Kudyba mailto:rkud...@fordham.edu>> >>> >> >> Am 18.05.2017 um 22:30 schrieb Reindl Harald: > "with w

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

> On May 18, 2017, at 4:41 PM, David Jones wrote: > >> From: Robert Kudyba > >>> Am 18.05.2017 um 22:30 schrieb Reindl Harald: "with working dnsmasq" says all - DNSMASQ DON'T DO RECURSION - IT CAN#T you are forwarding to some other nameserver and you are not the only one > >> But th

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

>From: Robert Kudyba >> Am 18.05.2017 um 22:30 schrieb Reindl Harald: >>> "with working dnsmasq" says all - DNSMASQ DON'T DO RECURSION - IT CAN#T >>> you are forwarding to some other nameserver and you are not the only one >But the nameserver I’m forwarding to is in our university. Your server

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

>From: Robert Kudyba >host -tTXT test.uribl.com.multi.uribl.com >test.uribl.com.multi.uribl.com descriptive text "127.0.0.1 -> Query Refused. >See > http://uribl.com/refused.shtml for more information [Your DNS IP: > 74.125.19.15]" >Some logs to show dnsmasq in use: >May 17 14:23:32 ourserver

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED on 2 Fedora 25 servers with working dnsmasq, w/ NetworkManager service

> Am 18.05.2017 um 22:30 schrieb Reindl Harald: >> "with working dnsmasq" says all - DNSMASQ DON'T DO RECURSION - IT CAN#T >> you are forwarding to some other nameserver and you are not the only one But the nameserver I’m forwarding to is in our university. > /etc/resolv.dnsmasq > search subdoma

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.

Emin Akbulut skrev den 2017-02-14 16:03: It's Gmail. When I hit the reply button, it only sends the last poster, -in this reply, it's you and I manually added users@- gmail ignores List-* headers, leading to much more problems then users using gmail if you need more support on there broken g

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.

on and so you seem to need forward messages which breaks > threading in any sane mail-client and list-archive? > > Am 14.02.2017 um 15:43 schrieb Emin Akbulut: > >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: *David Jones* mailto:djo...@ena.com>>

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.

Emin Akbulut skrev den 2017-02-14 14:21: How can I set the DNS conditional forwarders properly? setup spamasassin to use 127.0.0.1 as dns server, not any remote ips i dont know anything on how windows works :=)

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.

>From: RW >Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 7:51 AM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Re: URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was >blocked.   >On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:21:04 +0300 >Emin Akbulut wrote: >> Hi >> >> URIBL chec

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:21:04 +0300 Emin Akbulut wrote: > Hi > > URIBL checks are blocked. I think bec. of so many queries. I'm > advised to set up conditional forwarder on Windows DNS Server. If you mean that you should *stop* forwarding this traffic than that is correct. You need to be doing yo

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

On 9/18/2015 4:25 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 16.09.15 09:50, Bowie Bailey wrote: The SA config is probably a better solution than the bind exemptions. I would say just the opposite. For example, MTA at SMTP level can look up RBLs, and SA would benefit from having records in local cac

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

On 16.09.15 09:50, Bowie Bailey wrote: The SA config is probably a better solution than the bind exemptions. I would say just the opposite. For example, MTA at SMTP level can look up RBLs, and SA would benefit from having records in local cache. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ;

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Reindl Harald skrev den 2015-09-16 15:35: "cache-min-ttl" is AFAIK a unbound-only feature because it violates RFC's but in case of a mailserver it's your decision and if you don#t set it for days normally not a problem so configure unbound to listing only on 127.0.0.2 and in named.conf use fo

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

The SA config is probably a better solution than the bind exemptions. As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, URIBL is not the only DNS-based blacklist that enforces usage limits and it may not be as easy to tell that you are being blocked with some of the others. If you add in the 'dns_

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Am 16.09.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Marc Richter: All this is true. As you already pointed out in a previous post, resolving is quite slow on that host. I have no influence on the networking arround that box. So I did not want other things starting to go slow by this. well, and there unbound with

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

All this is true. As you already pointed out in a previous post, resolving is quite slow on that host. I have no influence on the networking arround that box. So I did not want other things starting to go slow by this. But you convinced me - I now also thing that the other way bears too much

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Am 16.09.2015 um 13:38 schrieb Marc Richter: Am 16.09.2015 um 11:41 schrieb Axb: Although, the intended setup with exemptions by defining empty forwarders for DNSBL zones was not my idea - this scenario is described on the SA wiki as a working solution: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Cach

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Hi Axb, Am 16.09.2015 um 11:41 schrieb Axb: Although, the intended setup with exemptions by defining empty forwarders for DNSBL zones was not my idea - this scenario is described on the SA wiki as a working solution: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver#Non-forwarding This seem

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Hi Axb, yes, I did c&p the config block from the wiki 1:1 into my BIND setup. I have added that zone - exemption you suggested into my config. I'll wait for a few spams to arrive to see the results. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Best regards, Marc Am 16.09.2015 um 11:41 schrieb Axb: O

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Am 16.09.2015 um 11:36 schrieb Marc Richter: I am - it's the very same setup you describe like I'm using. The only difference is that I do not rely on a dedicated DNS resolver I setup myself, but the centralized nameserver of my ISP, which works exactly like any nameserver I'd setup myself. no

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Hi Adam, that's a great workarround and perfectly fits my needs! Thank you for that! :) I'll use this if I cannot find out why my exemptions do not work in a reasonable amount of time. Best regards, Marc Am 15.09.2015 um 20:14 schrieb Adam Major: Hi. If you don't want change DNS resolver

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

On 09/16/2015 11:36 AM, Marc Richter wrote: if you are trying to insult people at all costs really? you would recognize it when i intend to do so Please read your previous reply again. You will find that you used a very harsh tone against someone who comes here asking questions in a reasonab

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Hi Bowie, thanks for your reply. I would suggest temporarily removing the forward completely as a test and see if this fixes the problem. If so, then your exemptions are not working correctly. If not, then double-check that you are actually using the local server and not still querying the IS

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

if you are trying to insult people at all costs really? you would recognize it when i intend to do so Please read your previous reply again. You will find that you used a very harsh tone against someone who comes here asking questions in a reasonable and moderate tone. Yes - maybe I *am* do

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Hi Dave, you are right: That is a measurement of "how fast is my ISP's cache?". But literally, that's all I want: I do not want "better" DNS results than I got from my ISPs DNS servers so far. I'd like to keep up the benefit of using a large DNS cache, without blocking these resources on my ho

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Hi. If you don't want change DNS resolver for all DNS queries from your server you can add in SA config line: dns_server x.y.z.k:53 where z.y.z.k is IP DNS server using to resolve only by SA. Then in resolv.conf you can use different (ex. ISP) DNS server. More info: http://spamassassin.apac

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

On 9/15/2015 6:51 AM, Marc Richter wrote: Hi everyone, I recently read the following in all my filtered Mail: 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. So I read what's writ

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

However you did not empty your ISP's dns server cache. That 2 msec response time is from his cache, the 543 msec for your server is when it's not in your server's cache. So you're not making a fair comparison. A response from a cache is always going to be faster, that's why people use caching

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Marc Richter skrev den 2015-09-15 13:23: That's 271 times faster than root-servers's lookup. hmm maybe your server is heavy loaded of spam ?, and your isp is not ? lets check this so: dig +trace uribl.com show me how it is for you note +trace do not care of forwards at all what version o

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Yes Am 15.09.2015 um 13:30 schrieb Axb: On 09/15/2015 01:23 PM, Marc Richter wrote: Also, you shouldn't make assumptions without measuring something: 1. without forwarding: ;; Query time: 543 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) 2. with forwarding to my ISP's servers: ;; Query time: 2 ms

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Marc Richter skrev den 2015-09-15 12:51: But even the IP of my server was sending just 2 requests for incomming spam since I have integrated BIND, these messages contain this ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE also. How can I hit the free usage limit by just 2 requests? https://www.google.dk/search?q=dnswal

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Am 15.09.2015 um 13:23 schrieb Marc Richter: if you are trying to insult people at all costs really? you would recognize it when i intend to do so *any* expierienced mailadmin out there has a local recursion nameserver on his MTA or at least somewhere in his LAN to use a central local cache

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

On 09/15/2015 01:23 PM, Marc Richter wrote: Also, you shouldn't make assumptions without measuring something: 1. without forwarding: ;; Query time: 543 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) 2. with forwarding to my ISP's servers: ;; Query time: 2 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) Tha

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Hey Reindl, if you are trying to insult people at all costs, you should read and understand their posts in full before doing so at least, to not look like a jackass additional to an impolite person. What I wrote is: >> ... but created the exemptions as listed at the very bottom of that >> si

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

On 09/15/2015 12:51 PM, Marc Richter wrote: Hi everyone, I recently read the following in all my filtered Mail: 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. So I read what's wr

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED while using local BIND

Am 15.09.2015 um 12:51 schrieb Marc Richter: I recently read the following in all my filtered Mail: 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. So I read what's written there

Re: URIBL_BLOCKED

On 10/24/2012 6:37 AM, Jared Hall wrote: Anybody else getting this this morning? Need more information but off the cuff it sounds like you are blocked because you aren't using a locally cached copy of an RBL or you've exceed an RBL's free limits.