It got tagged using this test but others keep coming in.
is there anything else i can do to the spamcop_uri file to make it fire?
other people on this list are tagging the same spam that in my system is going
thru
thanks
David B Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Kern, Tom wrote:
>
>> Perhaps,
From: "Niek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 6/10/2005 5:05 AM +0200, jdow wrote:
> > Out of curiosity what TTL exists on the surbl server lookups?
>
> man dig
I figure a meatware solution was suitable for something this unimportant.
{^_-}
On Thursday, June 9, 2005, 8:05:53 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
> Out of curiosity what TTL exists on the surbl server lookups?
It's 15 minutes for most blacklist records and 1 week for the
testpoints.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.surbl.org/
On 6/10/2005 5:05 AM +0200, jdow wrote:
Out of curiosity what TTL exists on the surbl server lookups?
man dig
Niek Baakman
From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thursday, June 9, 2005, 12:23:09 PM, Tom Kern wrote:
>
> > Well, here's one that just got thru.
> > if your SA doesn't block it, here it is-
>
>
>
> > Easy, convenient and discreet - order prescription drugs online.
> > http://lpjth.bqe4xctm83tjxcb.bu
On Thursday, June 9, 2005, 12:23:09 PM, Tom Kern wrote:
> Well, here's one that just got thru.
> if your SA doesn't block it, here it is-
> Easy, convenient and discreet - order prescription drugs online.
> http://lpjth.bqe4xctm83tjxcb.bullionismia-MUNGED.com
BTW That domain got added to JP an
>Kern, Tom wrote:
>> Well, here's one that just got thru.
>> if your SA doesn't block it, here it is-
>>
>http://lpjth.bqe4xctm83tjxcb.bullionismia.com
>
>That one hit the following in my SA 2.64 with all the surbl.org and uribl.com
>lists added:
>
>AB_URI_RBL
>BLACK_URI_RBL
>JP_URI_RBL
>
>But it
On Thursday, June 9, 2005, 12:44:47 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Kern, Tom wrote:
>> Well, here's one that just got thru.
>> if your SA doesn't block it, here it is-
>>
> http://lpjth.bqe4xctm83tjxcb.bullionismia.com
That one belongs to Michael Lindsay iMedia, along with a majority
of spam URI domai
>
>True, you might list associated domains. However, URIBLs still
>aren't psychic,
>they're just smart enough to do research :)
>
>However, the important point still remains: Time of check IS a
>major factor when
>talking about URIBLs. You cannot assume that two URIBL checks
>are comparable if
Chris Santerre wrote:
> ... It also helps we have people throughout the
> timezones. So at any time of the day...someone is awake :)
Could it be said... the sun never sets on SURBL? :)
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com
Chris Santerre wrote:
>>None of the URIBLs is psychic. None can list a domain faster
>>than it can be
>>reported to them. This means that some spam will arrive and
>>not match the test.
>>Time of check is a factor when you talk about URIBLs. It's a
>>MAJOR factor.
>
>
> Actually thats not quit
>
>None of the URIBLs is psychic. None can list a domain faster
>than it can be
>reported to them. This means that some spam will arrive and
>not match the test.
>Time of check is a factor when you talk about URIBLs. It's a
>MAJOR factor.
Actually thats not quite true :)
You report one domain
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Kern, Tom wrote:
> Perhaps, I'm not sure.
> Is there a way to tell?
> Also, I have seen some go through that I know are in spamcop.
>
> Do you know of a way to troubleshoot spamcop?
> i plan on upgrading sa, but I can't just yet, so I'd like to figure this out.
>
> Thanks for y
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Kern, Tom wrote:
>
>>Well, here's one that just got thru.
>>if your SA doesn't block it, here it is-
>>
>
> http://lpjth.bqe4xctm83tjxcb.bullionismia.com
>
> That one hit the following in my SA 2.64 with all the surbl.org and uribl.com
> lists added:
sorry for the double
Sorry. my bad.
won't happen again...
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Kern, Tom wrote:
>>
>>> Well, here's one that just got thru.
>>> if your SA doesn't block it, here it is-
>>>
>>
>> http://lpjth.bqe4xctm83tjxcb.bullionismia.com
>>
>> That one hit the following in my SA 2.64 w
Kern, Tom wrote:
> Well, here's one that just got thru.
> if your SA doesn't block it, here it is-
>
http://lpjth.bqe4xctm83tjxcb.bullionismia.com
That one hit the following in my SA 2.64 with all the surbl.org and uribl.com
lists added:
AB_URI_RBL
BLACK_URI_RBL
JP_URI_RBL
But it did not hit SC
Well, here's one that just got thru.
if your SA doesn't block it, here it is-
Easy, convenient and discreet - order prescription drugs online.
http://lpjth.bqe4xctm83tjxcb.bullionismia.com
The higher the buildings, the lower the morals.
People often grudge others what they cannot enjoy
Kern, Tom wrote:
> I'm running sa 2.63 with spamcop_uri.
> I'm still getting mail thru that has url's pointing to know spammers.
> When I grep maillog for spamcop_uri, i see that its working but NOT for the
> emails that have been getting thru.
> The score for spamcop is 4, which is the same score
Perhaps, I'm not sure.
Is there a way to tell?
Also, I have seen some go through that I know are in spamcop.
Do you know of a way to troubleshoot spamcop?
i plan on upgrading sa, but I can't just yet, so I'd like to figure this out.
Thanks for your help
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kern, Tom wro
Kern, Tom wrote:
> When I grep maillog for spamcop_uri, i see that its working but NOT
> for the emails that have been getting thru.
Are you suggesting that the mails that have been getting through should have
been caught by spamcop_uri?
The nature of the spamcop_uri beast is such that an email
At 10:00 AM 6/9/2005, you wrote:
I'm running sa 2.63 with spamcop_uri.
Might be worth upgrading.. :)
I'm still getting mail thru that has url's pointing to know spammers.
When I grep maillog for spamcop_uri, i see that its working but NOT
for the emails that have been getting thru.
The score
21 matches
Mail list logo
