> However, when querying
> achat-montre-rolex.net.multi.surbl.org, the firewall
> appears to decide that the answer is within a zone it has
> authority over,
> and rejects it (returning NXDOMAIN to the internal DNS servers).
>
> I'm going to look into figuring out how to allow these queries thr
> Your configuration and installation are fine. multi.surbl.org is
> the only list that should be checked, as it's the combined list
> with all other SURBL lists included:
>
> http://www.surbl.org/lists.html#multi
Aha! I think I've found the problem. The behaviour for SpamCopURI must have
ch
On Thursday, May 12, 2005, 7:02:47 AM, John Stewart wrote:
> This is killing me here dozens of spams this morning getting through
> (with bayes, RDJ+SARE, razor, dcc). Without the SpamCopURI working, my
> detection rate plummets.
> Any ideas why SpamCopURI would only be querying multi.surbl.o
n Users
Subject: RE: SpamCopURI not working, was RE: More Messed Up www URLs
Jeff Chan wrote:
> Have you tried spamassassin -D < some_message and spamassassin
> --lint?
SA lints fine... running it in debug mode, it appears to not be checking
anything but the multi records. See below.
I
On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 9:32:45 AM, John Stewart wrote:
> SA lints fine... running it in debug mode, it appears to not be checking
> anything but the multi records. See below.
> I've grepped through /usr/share/spamassassin and /etc/mail/spamassasin, and
> the only URI_RBL reference I find in an
Jeff Chan wrote:
> Have you tried spamassassin -D < some_message and spamassassin
> --lint?
SA lints fine... running it in debug mode, it appears to not be checking
anything but the multi records. See below.
I've grepped through /usr/share/spamassassin and /etc/mail/spamassasin, and
the only URI
On Monday, May 9, 2005, 8:50:43 AM, John Stewart wrote:
> Hmmm... I just re-installed SpamCopURI 0.25. Still the same deal. Also tried
> upgrading Net::DNS, but still no hits on the email containing this bad URL.
> I am running an old perl... 5.6.0. Perhaps is it critical to be running
> 5.8.2?
>
> On Friday, May 6, 2005, 3:23:56 PM, John Stewart wrote:
> > I upgraded just the other day (at which point I suspect I
> broke something)
> > as I saw on a site somewhere that 2.6.3 was vulnerable to a
> DOS attack. I
> > upgraded to 2.6.4 for SA, and 0.25 for SpamCopURI
>
> > Grepping through
