Richard Frovarp escreveu:
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:

   Hello,

Is it possible to configure SA to check only last Received address against RBL tests ??? I would like to avoid checking ALL Received addresses, because they can possible have DSL/cable addresses that can be blacklisted somewhere.

I would like, if possible, to check only last Received one, which would be the last ip address who contacted my server ...

   can that be done ?

   Thanks !


Most of the RBLs are correctly configured to only check the appropriate received addresses. For some of the lists, that's last external, for other lists it is valid to check every single one. If those DSL's are sending out spam, they should be marked as such. However, they should not be penalized for being DSLs. The default configuration handles these cases just fine.

However, if you look at the configuration for the lists, you'll see some with lastexternal or something similar. That's how you tell SA to check the one that contacted your system.


i was checking spamassassin definition files, which are updated daily in my site, and could find some interesting entries with 'lastexternal'.

20_dnsbl_tests.cf:header RCVD_IN_XBL eval:check_rbl('zen-lastexternal', 'zen.spamhaus.org.', '127.0.0.[45678]') 20_dnsbl_tests.cf:header RCVD_IN_PBL eval:check_rbl('zen-lastexternal', 'zen.spamhaus.org.', '127.0.0.1[01]') 20_dnsbl_tests.cf:header RCVD_IN_DSBL eval:check_rbl_txt('dsbl-lastexternal', 'list.dsbl.org.', '(?i:dsbl)') 20_dnsbl_tests.cf:header RCVD_IN_MAPS_DUL eval:check_rbl('dialup-lastexternal', 'dialups.mail-abuse.org.')


but ..... the RBL that is giving me headaches, which is spamcop, seems to NOT have the lastexternal entry:


20_dnsbl_tests.cf:header RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET eval:check_rbl_txt('spamcop', 'bl.spamcop.net.', '(?i:spamcop)')

question 1 is ..... can i redefine this rule in my local.cf for example ???

question 2 is ..... shouldnt this rule have the 'lastexternal' as several other RBL rules seems to have ???


as i told, i'm running sa-update daily and i seem to have latest published definitions:

[25320] dbg: channel: metadata version = 668092
[25320] dbg: dns: 4.2.3.updates.spamassassin.org => 668092, parsed as 668092
[25320] dbg: channel: current version is 668092, new version is 668092, skipping channel
[25320] dbg: diag: updates complete, exiting with code 1


--


        Atenciosamente / Sincerily,
        Leonardo Rodrigues
        Solutti Tecnologia
        http://www.solutti.com.br

        Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        My SPAMTRAP, do not email it




Reply via email to