--On Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:33 AM +1200 Simon Byrnand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:40 28/05/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awhile back about 2.55 having a problem with RBL?
No,
It's just that by an extremely annoying co-incidence, one of the RBL lists used by SA (all recent versions) died only a couple of days after 2.55's release, causing timeouts for people...
I certainly havn't noticed any RBL issues with 2.55, other than the above, and as far as I know nothing was touched in that area of code....
Regards, Simon
I think that there is a RBL issue with 2.55...but think that it's been around for some time.
My local.cf has a bunch of RBL+ related entries in it, for example...
header RCVD_IN_RBL_PLUS rbleval:check_rbl('rblplus', 'rbl-plus.mail-abus e.ja.net.') describe RCVD_IN_RBL_PLUS Received via RBLed relay, see http://mail-abuse. org/rbl+/
header X_RBL rbleval:check_rbl_results_for('rblplus', '127.1.0.1') describe X_RBL Received via RBLed relay, see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl+ /
header X_DUL rbleval:check_rbl_results_for('rblplus', '127.1.0.2') describe X_DUL Received via dialup, see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl+/
etc.
When I run "spamassassin -t -D rbl=-9 < sample-spam.txt, the output ends...
* 2.0 -- RBL: Received via RBLed relay, see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl+/
[RBL check: found 142.249.10.63.rbl-plus.mail-abuse.ja.net., type: 127.1.0.2]
* 0.5 -- Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822
Now if I simply add the lines...
header X_OPS rbleval:check_rbl_results_for('rblplus', '127.1.0.8') describe X_OPS Received via OPSed relay, see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl+ /
..and rerun, the output ends...
* 2.0 -- RBL: Received via RBLed relay, see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl+/
[RBL check: found 142.249.10.63.rbl-plus.mail-abuse.ja.net., type: 127.1.0.2]
* 1.2 -- RBL: Received via dialup, see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl+/
* 0.5 -- Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822
Note the "1.2 -- RBL: Received via dialup, see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl+/"; which didn't appear in the first test run (although it should have).
A "diff" between the output of the two runs includes...
debug: Ran run_rbl_eval_test rule X_DUL ======> got hit
(present in the second run, but not in the first).
Well, that could indeed be a bug.... if you have something that is reproducable, it might pay to file a bug report on the spamassassin bugzilla page giving as much info as you can....(and attach a copy of your sample message too)
Regards, Simon
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay Get office equipment for less on eBay! http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
