|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > spamassassin-dev archives|
--- Comment #17 from Kevin A. McGrail <firstname.lastname@example.org> 2011-12-13 21:01:34 UTC ---
OK, so URIBL has asked to use bit 1 and changed their ACL so if they return a
block, bit 1 is used.
I updated 25_uribl.cf to include their block rule and a score of 0.001 in
#URIBL BLOCK RULES - Bit 1 means your DNS has been blocked and this rule should
be triggered to notify you.
urirhssub URIBL_BLOCKED multi.uribl.com. A 1
body URIBL_BLOCKED eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_BLOCKED')
describe URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was
blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for
tflags URIBL_BLOCKED nice net noautolearn
Also updated http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#preview to
include a link to URIBL.
svn commit -m 'Implementation of a proposed Block Notification Rule for URIBL
using bit 1 - Bug 6724' rules
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 1213921.
Matthias, if you can decide on a bit (not a bitmask) to return for DNSWL
blocks, we can add the notification rule.
And if this moves you to change your decision to implement the purposefully
wrong DNS response, we can move DNSWL back to default configuration.
Then we'll keep the ticket open and perhaps someone can work on a way to make
spamd recognize that the BLOCK rule is triggered and hold off on subsequent
DNSBL queries for 1 hour.
-- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.