|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > spamassassin-dev archives|
On 2011-12-13 18:54, email@example.com wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from AXB<firstname.lastname@example.org> 2011-12-13 17:54:12 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #10)
>> score URIBL_BLACK_BLOCKED 0.001
>> score URIBL_GREY_BLOCKED 0.001
>> score URIBL_RED_BLOCK 0.001
>> Wouldn't URIBL_BLACK / URIBL_GREY / URIBL_RED also hit, whenever those hit, due
>> to them being urirhssub rules with "a single decimal or hex" value, so it's
>> checking for a bit mask, not equality?
>> So we'd need scores that negate the scores of the URIBL rules?
>> score URIBL_BLACK_BLOCKED 0 -1.775 0 -1.725
>> score URIBL_GREY_BLOCKED 0 -1.084 0 -0.424
>> score URIBL_RED_BLOCKED -0.001
> what I sugegsted above...
has anybody been bitten, lately by URIBL's .255 case?
seems to me there's a lot of noise which started with DNSWL and is
afaik, URIBL has a "limit" of 300k queries/day (when it blocked my trap
server) - way more than other BLs