On 2021-04-10 03:20 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Apr 2021, at 14:53, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm very, very sorry to beat a dead horse, but I'm deeply confused by
the "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI" rule which appears to be reporting incorrectly
on my system.
STOP USING ANY PUBLIC DNS RESOLVERS WITH ANY MAIL
On 10 Apr 2021, at 14:53, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm very, very sorry to beat a dead horse, but I'm deeply confused by
the "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI" rule which appears to be reporting incorrectly
on my system.
STOP USING ANY PUBLIC DNS RESOLVERS WITH ANY MAIL SERVERS!
Some of these will return bogus
address 50.30.46.135 is whitelisted as shown by
the RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI rule.
However, the dnswl.org domain shows that the 50.30.46.135 is *not*
whitelisted: https://www.dnswl.org/s/?s=50.30.46.135
So what would account for my system reporting it as whitelisted when the
dnswl.org domain does not report it as whitelisted?
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 01:58:47 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> RW skrev den 2019-09-28 01:26:
> > On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 00:16:04 +0200
> > Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >
> >> Sep 27 00:17:51 localhost named[17415]: connection refused
> >> resolving '_.45.list.dnswl.org/A/IN': 2a01:7e00:e000:293::a:1000#53
RW skrev den 2019-09-28 01:26:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 00:16:04 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Sep 27 00:17:51 localhost named[17415]: connection refused resolving
'_.45.list.dnswl.org/A/IN': 2a01:7e00:e000:293::a:1000#53
...
is it dkimdomain lookup with ips in a askdns rule ?
No, list.dnswl.org is
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 00:16:04 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Sep 27 00:17:51 localhost named[17415]: connection refused resolving
> '_.45.list.dnswl.org/A/IN': 2a01:7e00:e000:293::a:1000#53
> ...
> is it dkimdomain lookup with ips in a askdns rule ?
No, list.dnswl.org is used for a first-trusted
Sep 27 00:17:51 localhost named[17415]: connection refused resolving
'_.45.list.dnswl.org/A/IN': 2a01:7e00:e000:293::a:1000#53
more lines in my log, same problem
am i the only one that see it ?
is it dkimdomain lookup with ips in a askdns rule ?
Hello SA list,
I believe that this list reaches quite a few active users of dnswl.org:
— Announcement —
News from the dnswl.org <https://www.dnswl.org/> team:
For the past years we used an e-mail based approach for user requests to add,
change or remove data. This was rather time-con
Hello SA users list,
The SpamAssassin rules are an important input for the dnswl.org
project; in turn, the dnswl.org project helps to reduce the chance of
false positives through the SA ruleset.
The SpamAssassin and the dnswl.org projects have a significant overlap
in the user base, and an
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:55:11 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
X-CanIt-Geo: No geolocation information available for 192.168.10.23
bill me for that one :-)
My original measurements and script are here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general/132047/match=cache
bind can use
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 21:55 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:12:34 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > > That's true, though caching is much less effective than you may
> > > suppose. In real-life measurements on real mail servers, I found a
> > > very low cache hit rate
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:12:34 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > That's true, though caching is much less effective than you may
> > suppose. In real-life measurements on real mail servers, I found a
> > very low cache hit rate for common DNS{B,W}Ls, on the order of only
> > 25-50% hits.
> As
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 20:24 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:55:41 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > The DNS TTL appears to be 12 hours, and a good share of mail
> > (definitely true for ham, only partly for spam) is received from a
> > rather limited number of distinct
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:55:41 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> The DNS TTL appears to be 12 hours, and a good share of mail
> (definitely true for ham, only partly for spam) is received from a
> rather limited number of distinct SMTP servers, only. With a local,
> caching DNS server the number o
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 23:55 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> The DNS TTL appears to be 12 hours, and a good share of mail (definitely
> true for ham, only partly for spam) is received from a rather limited
> number of distinct SMTP servers, only. With a local, caching DNS server
> the number of
ing the free
> usage limit is *much* higher.
>
> number of mail != number of DNS lookups
... at the dnswl.org DNS mirror infrastructure I mean, obviously.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 18:03 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> http://www.dnswl.org/news/archives/24-Abusive-use-of-dnswl.org-infrastructure-enforcing-limits.html
> Basically, free use only allows 100,000 queries per organization per day.
> If you're handling more than 100,00
http://www.dnswl.org/news/archives/24-Abusive-use-of-dnswl.org-infrastructure-enforcing-limits.html
This came up in the "Spam email many have RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED" thread.
DNSWL.org made an announcement about it with more details.
Basically, free use only allows 100,000 queries per or
Hello all,
dnswl.org has been running as a pure volunteer project since 2006.
However, given the changing anti-spam industry and the challenges
ahead, we decided that we need some sound financial basis. In a number
of steps, we will introduce a subscription model for "heavy" users and
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 17:09 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 02/26, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > opinions there. If the code and idea is deemed good, eventually sign a
> > CLA (assuming it's a non-trivial change), so the code can be accepted
> > for upstream inclusion.
>
> Thanks. I'm
lly, Darxus is editor at dnswl.org and contributes a nameserver -
> he is very much in the loop with the project. "--report" would be a good
> addition to abuse reporting through the webinterface, that's why Darxus
> is investigating.
So my second attempt at interpreting a singl
On 02/26, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> opinions there. If the code and idea is deemed good, eventually sign a
> CLA (assuming it's a non-trivial change), so the code can be accepted
> for upstream inclusion.
Thanks. I'm looking more for the requirements for the code being accepted
into SA. It lo
Karsten,
Am 26.02.10 22:53, schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
> code? Then this would seem to be a general sketch: Write the plugin,
> while keeping DNSWL tightly in the loop to sync the process. Submit the
Actually, Darxus is editor at dnswl.org and contributes a nameserver -
he is very m
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:40 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 02/26, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > I assume you're talking about reporting abuse? If you actually would go
> > to dnswl.org, you'll see a Report Abuse link right hand, which tells you
> > wh
On 02/26, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I assume you're talking about reporting abuse? If you actually would go
> to dnswl.org, you'll see a Report Abuse link right hand, which tells you
> what's needed.
No. Matthias (DNSWL) asked me to "try to get us included in th
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:09 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> Beyond creating the plugin?
I assume you're talking about reporting abuse? If you actually would go
to dnswl.org, you'll see a Report Abuse link right hand, which tells you
what's needed.
If you want to reg
Beyond creating the plugin?
(Also interested in the --revoke data.)
--
"Of course there's strength in numbers. But there's strength in sharp
weaponry too. Ironically, this lead to what we call 'civilization'."
- spore
http://www.ChaosReigns.com
age-
From: Matthias Leisi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8. august 2008 10:45
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Using DNSWL.org with Icewarp Merak's SpamAssassin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rasmus Haslund schrieb:
| I have tried without luck to get any supp
their website:
I don't know which version of SpamAssassin is used by Icewarp, but
dnswl.org rules are part of SA's default ruleset since 3.2.0.
| However it seems SpamAssassin is not using the configuration.
| Any ideas on what could be going wrong?
Is SA looking at the same .cf file whi
Hi all,
I have tried without luck to get any support from Icewarp in this manner
and instead hope someone on the list can be of assistance.
I am trying to use DNSWL in our local.cf and have copied the
configuration from their website:
header __RCVD_IN_DNSWL eval:check_rbl('dnswl-firs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sujit Acharyya-Choudhury wrote:
> We are currently running SpamAssassin 3.1.7. Can we run dnswl.org with
> this version of SpamAssassin?
Sure - it uses regular DNSBL-style lookups. dnswl.org data (and the
rules) should work in almost any v
We are currently running SpamAssassin 3.1.7. Can we run dnswl.org with
this version of SpamAssassin?
Can I put in lines like this in local.cf?
# dnswl.org file
header __RCVD_IN_DNSWL
eval:check_rbl('dnswl-firsttrusted,'127.0.\d+.1')
header RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW eval:check
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jack L. Stone wrote:
> When I run manual test:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> host 2.0.0.127.list.dnswl.org
> ...I get
> 2.0.0.127.list.dnswl.org has address 127.0.10.0
> Not return of 127.0.0.2???
There was a doc error on http://www.dnswl.org/tech tell
Jack L. Stone wrote:
> At 01:46 PM 5.7.2007 +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
>
>> [Disclosure: I'm involved with the dnswl.org project]
>>
>> SA 3.2.0 misses one rule to get the actual dnswl.org lookup rules working
>> (reported in http://issues.apache.or
At 01:46 PM 5.7.2007 +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
>[Disclosure: I'm involved with the dnswl.org project]
>
>SA 3.2.0 misses one rule to get the actual dnswl.org lookup rules working
>(reported in http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5450,
>targetted for resolut
[Disclosure: I'm involved with the dnswl.org project]
SA 3.2.0 misses one rule to get the actual dnswl.org lookup rules working
(reported in http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5450,
targetted for resolution in 3.2.1).
In order to use dnswl.org lookups already today, ad
36 matches
Mail list logo
