URIBL not as effective as it was

[Dhawal Doshy]

Martin Hepworth wrote:
> 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..

URIBL rules are also included in 25_uribl.cf (if you use sa-update).. 
however i noticed they weren't being used by default (maybe a 
configuration error on my test server). i had to manually add the 
BLACK/GREY from 25_uribl.cf to mailscanner.cf. Strangely SURBL and 
URIBL_SBL continued to work as usual.

If someone can confirm the same behavio(u)r, i will file a bugzilla 
report for SA.

- dhawal