Support for multiple 3rd party SURBL servers

This forum contains features that has been archived. This section contains implemented features, duplicate requests, and requests which we have decided not to implement.
Post Reply

Do you need this feature?

YES
22
85%
NO
4
15%
 
Total votes: 26

cgountanis
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 105
Joined: 2005-07-01 00:54
Location: USA

Support for multiple 3rd party SURBL servers

Post by cgountanis » 2005-08-31 00:06

Support for multiple 3rd party SURBL servers
GFI MailEssentials checks email content against SURBL servers. Administrators can configure multiple SURBL servers, add their own and also define the priority of which server should be checked first. More information on SURBL can be found at http://www.surbl.org.

You block by DNS Blacklist why not SURBL PLEASE :) Same concept as DNS just add servers and make active. As far as the return emails there should be an option for both to send account not found error so most lists will see this error and remove email address thinking the user doesnt not exist.

cgountanis
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 105
Joined: 2005-07-01 00:54
Location: USA

Post by cgountanis » 2005-09-03 00:56

BUMP

For the people that don't know the content in the emails are checked for bad links or uri/urls. It's awesome in the GFI tools for Exchange server.


PLEASE

User avatar
martin
Developer
Developer
Posts: 6834
Joined: 2003-11-21 01:09
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by martin » 2005-09-08 19:28

> Same concept as DNS just add servers and make active.

Just a comment. I wouldn't say that the concept it the same. The only think that is the same is that the database is stored in a DNS. Pretty much everything else differs. From my point of view, it's very much more complicated to implement than normal DNS-BL (still pretty easy though). It requires much more CPU resources, memory usage, and bandwidth than normal DNS-BL.

cgountanis
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 105
Joined: 2005-07-01 00:54
Location: USA

Post by cgountanis » 2005-09-08 20:05

make it an option per account same with dns

^DooM^
Site Admin
Posts: 13861
Joined: 2005-07-29 16:18
Location: UK

Post by ^DooM^ » 2005-09-27 16:18

This in my opinion would be a great addon to hmail. As martin said though it would take up a lot more resources especially under heavy load conditions.

User avatar
martin
Developer
Developer
Posts: 6834
Joined: 2003-11-21 01:09
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by martin » 2005-12-02 00:55

Anyone seen any numbers on SURBL efficency? Will probably add it to the next version.

rodolfor
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 282
Joined: 2005-06-30 09:05
Location: Gubbio - Italy

Post by rodolfor » 2006-01-09 21:14

I have this testbed:
1. firewall zywall with spam filter wich mark but doesnt block spam
2. hmailserver 4.2B184 with blacklist acrivated (the three standard BL)
3. script to block the delivery of spam based in surbl.org with multi-list (http://www.hmailserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3458)

My numbers for 2 days are (sunday and monday):
Messages containing spam = 1038
Messages containing virus = 66
Processed messages = 1034

Of (1034-66) delivered messages:
- spam detected by surbl.org black list: 151 with 0 false positive
- spam detected by zywall black list: 205 with 0 false positive
- spam detected by zywall but not by surbl: 96
- spam detected by surbl but not by zywall: 45

I have verified that the combination of free blacklist (spamhause) and surbl is sufficient; adding a pay blacklist is perferct.

I prefere a lot this configuration avoid any baesian or other systems, difficult to maintain and with a high false-positive propability.

My opinion is: add surbl support!

User avatar
martin
Developer
Developer
Posts: 6834
Joined: 2003-11-21 01:09
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by martin » 2006-01-29 20:03

I've done a test implementation of SURBL now and it seems to work fine. Only problem is that I have to include a list of all the TLD's in the hMailServer installation, and this list needs to be updated from time to time since it's changes over time.

Thinking of adding a dropdown in the DNS blacklist settings dialog that lets the user chose whether it's a "normal" dns blacklist or if it's a SURBL-list. Should be enough, right?

CraigHarris
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 886
Joined: 2005-11-28 11:43

Post by CraigHarris » 2006-01-29 20:39

martin wrote:I've done a test implementation of SURBL now and it seems to work fine.
:D
martin wrote:Only problem is that I have to include a list of all the TLD's in the hMailServer installation, and this list needs to be updated from time to time since it's changes over time.
Can hMail pick this list up from a website, say once a week?
martin wrote:Thinking of adding a dropdown in the DNS blacklist settings dialog that lets the user chose whether it's a "normal" dns blacklist or if it's a SURBL-list. Should be enough, right?
It may cause confusion - although DNS is used for checking each, they are rather different -- I'd prefer to see separate lists -- with a brief description of what they are on the tab for such (just to assist those who don't RTFM) ;)

Also, they need to account for return values differently to ordinary blacklists, at least if using more efficient multi- lists.
Windows Server 2003 Std ::: hMailServer 4.3 B248 ::: 99% of email rejected as spam ;)

User avatar
martin
Developer
Developer
Posts: 6834
Joined: 2003-11-21 01:09
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by martin » 2006-03-24 22:04

CraigHarris wrote:
martin wrote:Thinking of adding a dropdown in the DNS blacklist settings dialog that lets the user chose whether it's a "normal" dns blacklist or if it's a SURBL-list. Should be enough, right?
It may cause confusion - although DNS is used for checking each, they are rather different -- I'd prefer to see separate lists -- with a brief description of what they are on the tab for such (just to assist those who don't RTFM) ;)
But the user should enter the same things as in the DNS blacklists, except for Expected result. Agree?

From surbl.org: A non-result (NXDOMAIN) indicates lack of inclusion in the list. An Address result indicates list inclusion, i.e., probable spam

Post Reply