> On Jan 8, 2023, at 10:35 PM, Henrik K <h...@hege.li> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 04:23:11PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>> What did you end up with?
>>
>> I have a bunch of zero rules for these yet still keep getting the
>> "administrative notice" from sbl/zen.
>>
>> The fact that those guys don't just send out a "yes, this is on by default
>> in spamassassin, here is copy pasta to turn us off" email bugs me.
>>
>> I've grown to this huge list and still get the warnings.
>>
>> # remove spamhaus tests, they want us to pay
>> # need to include the first base rule or DNS still triggers but is ignored
>> score __RCVD_IN_ZEN 0
>> score RCVD_IN_SBL 0
>> score RCVD_IN_XBL 0
>> score RCVD_IN_PBL 0
>> score URIBL_SBL 0
>> score URIBL_CSS 0
>> score URIBL_SBL_A 0
>> score URIBL_CSS_A 0
>> score URIBL_DBL_SPAM 0
>> score URIBL_DBL_PHISH 0
>> score URIBL_DBL_MALWARE 0
>> score URIBL_DBL_BOTNETCC 0
>> score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_SPAM 0
>> score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_REDIR 0
>> score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_PHISH 0
>> score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_MALW 0
>> score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_BOTCC 0
>>
>> Until I can get around to updating I'm considering just nuking the actual
>> tests from the ruleset.
>
> Much easier and reliable way:
>
> dns_query_restriction deny spamhaus.org
Trying this on half the pair, I assume this hits all subdomains of spamhaus.org?
Never ran into that parameter in my searches for this.
Thanks!
Charles
