Am 11.08.2015 um 14:02 schrieb Sujit Acharyya-choudhury:
The URIBL_PH_SURBL is actually not very useful. I have checked a real phishing site with SURBL and it shows clean in SURBL - I think, SURBL only looks at the part of the domain.
every URIBL check only tests the main-domain of a link, that's how it works - you can't qualify something as "not very useful" because you checked a single site
if you have a sensible RBL scoring in front of the contentscanner you won't see much hits because mailservers sending the phishing crap are instantly known and blocked
-----Original Message----- From: RW [mailto:rwmailli...@googlemail.com] Sent: 11 August 2015 12:57 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Phishtank and SpamAssassin On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:11:56 +0000 Sujit Acharyya-choudhury wrote:I have seen lot of Phishes submitted in Phishtank.com and yet there is no rule to check Phishtank.com.There is via URIBL_PH_SURBL. It doesn't score much though
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
