URIBL not as effective as it was

[Martin Hepworth]

Paul Welsh wrote:
> This time last year I could rely on the URIBL family of anti-spam measures
> within spamassassin to detect loads of spam very reliably.  Examples
> include:
> 
> URIBL_SC_SURBL
> URIBL_AB_SURBL
> URIBL_WS_SURBL
> URIBL_SBL
> URIBL_OB_SURBL
> URIBL_WS_SURBL
> 
> Seems to me these are far less effective than they were (they aren't showing
> up as much).  Can anyone confirm this from their own experince?
> 
Paul

try black and grey from http://www.uribl.com/...

I think these are included in 'modern' spam.assassin.prefs.conf on 
MailScanner, but I'm not sure..

-- 
Martin Hepworth
Senior Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300

**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.	

**********************************************************************