Oh, I see now, I thought it was only testing the sender.
Yes, one of the domains mentioned in the message body was listed.
Thanks!
Claudia
John Hardin escribió:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Claudia Burman wrote:
...if the URI is not listed in www.uribl.com ?
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from [...] (sending to my server)
Received: from pikachu.nic.ar (unknown [140.191.48.11])
by maderna.nic.ar (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E07D7049;
Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:19 -0200 (ARST)
Received: by pikachu.nic.ar (Postfix, from userid 2)
id 0C59B17873; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:18 -0200 (ARST)
Subject: Solicitud de Modificacion de Datos de xxxx.com.ar Recibida
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:18 -0200 (ARST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at xxxxx.com
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.469 required=5
tests=[DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479,
DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44, EXCLAMACION_ES=1, NO_REAL_NAME=0.55,
URIBL_BLACK=3]
X-Spam-Score: 6.469
X-Spam-Level: ******
X-Spam-Flag: YES
Where's a URI in that?
Look in the message body for URIs and/or domain names and check those
against www.uribl.com.
Another message from the same domain doesn't hit the rule
URIBL != DNSBL
