SA Bugzilla – Bug 6696
Add URIBL SBL lookup to check A record of domain using new "net a"
Last modified: 2011-12-10 14:30:23 UTC
SA 3.4.0 provides to check if a URI's A record is listed on, for example SBL uridnsbl URIBL_SBL_A sbl.spamhaus.org. A body URIBL_SBL_A eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_SBL_A') describe URIBL_SBL_A Contains a URL's A record listed in the SBL blocklist tflags URIBL_SBL_A net a This may overlap with URIBL_SBL rule will be placed in sandbox for masschecks
Created attachment 5008 [details] URIBL_SBL_A
Alex, Aside, I updated your Bugzilla account to reflect that you have a CLA. I added 20_bug_6996.cf to my sandbox and did a make test. It currently fails lint: lint: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in "rules/70_sandbox.cf": uridnsbl URIBL_SBL_A sbl.spamhaus.org. A at build/mkrules line 254. lint: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in "rules/70_sandbox.cf": uridnsbl URIBL_SBL_A sbl.spamhaus.org. A at build/mkrules line 254. I looked at the plug in and the tflag for a is defined in URIDNSBL.pm but it looks like mkrules in build will need code added for this new rule type.
trunk: Bug 6696: Add URIBL SBL lookup to check A record of domain using new "net a" - load URIDNSBL plugin for lint, reinstate the URIBL_SBL_A rule Sending build/mkrules Sending rulesrc/sandbox/axb/20_bug_6696.cf Committed revision 1199762.
I marked a rule net c and it passes make test. Should that be expected?
> I marked a rule net c and it passes make test. Should that be expected? I guess so. The list of tflags options may be extended by plugins, so I don't think we have a definite list of valid tflags, nor do we have a test for them. I think the concept of 'ignore unknown tflags options' is acceptable.
Can this bug be marked closed?
(In reply to comment #6) > Can this bug be marked closed? +1
Considered resolved and leaving the rules to masscheck...