Try to fix for 2.60.  Justin/Theo, feel free to finish this off w/o me.
I still have sand in my eyes.  :-/

+1

tis fine by me.  the GA disabled it anyway.

+1 on what, we haven't got a patch ;)
no, seriously, +1 on the trivial 2-line deletion that we're talking about.
I don't think we really need a patch.

Subject: Re:  remove RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM

> tis fine by me.  the GA disabled it anyway.

Let's just comment it out rather than deleting it.

after discussion, we'll just set the score to 0 with a disclaimer about the 
removal fee.

also assigning to myself.

Created attachment 1180 [details]
proposed fix

ok, here's a patch to set its score to 0 and note a comment....

works for me

+1 too

committed.

Can this be reviewed? Current delisting policy does not mention $50 fee...

http://www.sorbs.net/overview.shtml

Performance looks decent...

https://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/blacklist.php_dnsbl=RCVD_IN_SORBS_NR_SPAM.html

Is there an issue with the current ruleset wrt SORBS? I see a whole block of RBL rules for them that are active in the currently published rules.

(In reply to Joe Quinn from comment #11)
> Is there an issue with the current ruleset wrt SORBS? I see a whole block of
> RBL rules for them that are active in the currently published rules.

Why should there be an issue? what is the problem?

Not sure, but Robert Brooks is asking that this ticket be reviewed 13 years later.

(In reply to Joe Quinn from comment #13)
> Not sure, but Robert Brooks is asking that this ticket be reviewed 13 years
> later.

ah!!
Probably due to the comment
# delist: $50 fee for RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, others have free retest on request
I'll fix that so ppl can sleep in peace

It's not just the comment, the rule itself is commented-out

(In reply to RW from comment #15)
> It's not just the comment, the rule itself is commented-out

Opps  - missed that - fixed
Next masscheck should set the score and we may need to adjust.
Please help watch perfomance and report to dev list

I added -lastexternal to the rule thus...

header RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM      eval:check_rbl_sub('sorbs-lastexternal', '127.0.0.6')

Sorry for the thread necromancy here, I figured the history would help though ;-)

I had tons (thousands) of false positives, when this was turned on at the start of September.  Others on the spamassassin mailing had similar experiences.   And when it did trigger on a real spam message, others spam rules and DNSBLs had already flagged it as spam.  So at least for me, it's not useful at all.

I'm not getting good results either.

Certainly not as good as https://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/blacklist.php_dnsbl=RCVD_IN_SORBS_NR_SPAM.html would suggest.

I think they are specifically using new.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net and recent.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net (excluding old.spam). I think testing/scoring new.spam may be useful.

I am getting RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM on emails from Gmail.  Their IPs are listed in SORBS SPAM, SORBS NEW, and CASA CBL block lists.  I am using SA version 3.3.1 on CentOS 6.6.  sa-update is up-to-date.

I see where RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM lines were commented out of 50_scores.cf; however "score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 0" was not added.

Questions...

1) How is RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM winding up in the envelope if not being placed there by my server.

2) What is it's score?

3) What is the upshot of Gmail emails being flagged like this?  Is this to be considered a threat to successful delivery of Gmail email?

thanks,
JC

JC - Updates are placed in /var/lib/spamassassin. The rule is in the following file:

/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004000/updates_spamassassin_org/20_dnsbl_tests.cf

- Mark

OK, yes... I should have been looking in /var/lib/spamassassin.

My question now is, why should RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM have score set to 0.0 or 0.5?

Why isn't a listing in SORBS SPAM significant?

thanks,
JC

(In reply to jcalvert from comment #22)

Your question isn't very clear, but I don't think it's relevant to this bug report. It belong in the user list.