WARN on saving Custom Spamassassin rules

[imc67]

I just edited the Custom Spamassassin rules and with saving the logs says below, is this normal, does it work?

Apr 14 11:57:51 [POST] /spam_acl
Apr 14 11:57:51 2026-04-14 09:57:51,747 INFO waiting for spamd to stop
Apr 14 11:57:51 2026-04-14 09:57:51,787 INFO stopped: spamd (exit status 0)
Apr 14 11:57:51 2026-04-14 09:57:51,787 INFO reaped unknown pid 97370 (terminated by SIGINT)
Apr 14 11:57:51 2026-04-14 09:57:51,787 INFO reaped unknown pid 97371 (terminated by SIGINT)
Apr 14 11:57:51 2026-04-14 09:57:51,790 INFO spawned: 'spamd' with pid 98084
Apr 14 11:57:52 2026-04-14 09:57:52,792 INFO success: spamd entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)
Apr 14 11:57:52 [POST] /spam_custom_config
Apr 14 11:57:53 Apr 14 09:57:53.363 [98087] warn: config: path "/root/.spamassassin" is inaccessible: Permission denied
Apr 14 11:57:53 Apr 14 09:57:53.363 [98087] warn: config: path "/root/.spamassassin/user_prefs" is inaccessible: Permission denied
Apr 14 11:57:53 Apr 14 09:57:53.436 [98087] warn: config: registryboundaries: no tlds defined, need to run sa-update
Apr 14 11:57:53 Apr 14 09:57:53.445 [98087] warn: config: path "/root/.spamassassin" is inaccessible: Permission denied
Apr 14 11:57:53 2026-04-14 09:57:53,643 INFO waiting for spamd to stop
Apr 14 11:57:53 2026-04-14 09:57:53,699 INFO stopped: spamd (exit status 0)
Apr 14 11:57:53 2026-04-14 09:57:53,703 INFO spawned: 'spamd' with pid 98090
Apr 14 11:57:54 2026-04-14 09:57:54,706 INFO success: spamd entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)

[james]

Hello @imc67
This should be okay.
Could you validate if your custom Spamassassin rules work?

[imc67]

@james said:

Could you validate if your custom Spamassassin rules work?

I guess it works, the rules before did a good job, the edits were minor tweaks and since then there are not more than before spam (actually it's still quite low).

[p44]

@imc67 Hi, what kind of rules you added?

I’m asking this because I had issues receiving emails (here my post) and I was applying these rules in Spam assassin, that probably blocked emails.

I’m still doing some tests but is interesting to know what kind of rules you was using.

Thanks

[imc67]

@p44 with the excellent help of @d19dotca in https://forum.cloudron.io/topic/4770/sharing-custom-spamassassin-rules I have been using his latest versions since 2021. With my three different Cloudrons (together 65 users and 92 mailboxes) the spam was reduced to about 7%.

However due to some glitches it made me ask ChatGPT for a review, below my version as of today and the explanation by ChatGPT why:

After using the initial ruleset in production, I adjusted the scores with one main goal: reduce false positives without weakening real spam/phishing detection.

Key Changes & Reasoning

1. DNSBL scores reduced slightly
   Some lists (e.g. PBL, SBL, XBL) were too dominant—one hit could almost classify a message as spam. Lowered them so they still matter, but now require supporting signals.
2. URIBL rebalanced
   Generic SURBL scores were reduced, while high-confidence Spamhaus DBL categories (phish/malware/botnet) remain strong. This avoids penalizing legitimate platforms with mixed reputation.
3. SPF/DKIM/DMARC normalized
   Lowered impact of SPF softfail (common with forwarding)
   Reduced trust in SPF/DKIM whitelists
   Added KAM rules for better DMARC/reputation context
4. HTML/content rules softened
   BODY_URI_ONLY reduced to avoid flagging legitimate newsletters and link-heavy emails.
5. Freemail & Reply-To tuning
   Lowered FREEMAIL_REPLYTO to reduce false positives from SaaS/CRM systems.
6. RDNS/network heuristics reduced
   Dynamic IP / missing rDNS is common in cloud setups, so these are now weaker signals.
7. Phishing & anomaly signals slightly tuned down
   High-risk rules (like URI_PHISH) still strong, but less likely to trigger on borderline cases.
8. Date anomalies reduced
   Time drift and header inconsistencies happen often in legitimate mail, so these are now low-weight.

Result

Less false positives (especially newsletters, SaaS, forwarded mail)
Spam now typically requires multiple signals instead of one strong hit
Phishing/malware detection remains solid
Overall, the system is now more balanced and closer to how modern email behaves.

# ============================
# Bayesian Filtering (BAYES)
# ============================

bayes_auto_learn 1
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 6.0

score BAYES_00 -7.0
score BAYES_05 -4.0
score BAYES_20 -1.0
score BAYES_40 0.5
score BAYES_50 0.75
score BAYES_60 2.25
score BAYES_80 3.75
score BAYES_95 6.5
score BAYES_99 8.0
score BAYES_999 8.5


# ============================
# DNS-based Blocklists (DNSBL)
# ============================

score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 4.0
score RCVD_IN_IADB_DK 0.0
score RCVD_IN_IADB_DOPTIN_LT50 0.0
score RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTED 0.0
score RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS -0.25
score RCVD_IN_IADB_SENDERID -0.25
score RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF -0.25
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL 0.0
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L2 1.0
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3 1.5
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L4 3.5
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5 4.0
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_ZBI 4.0
score RCVD_IN_PBL 4.0
score RCVD_IN_PSBL 4.0
score RCVD_IN_SBL 4.5
score RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS 3.5
score RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED 0.0
score RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL 0.0
score RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE 0.0
score RCVD_IN_XBL 5.5
score RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED 0.0
score RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS 0.0

## DNS Whitelists
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED 0.0
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI -4.0
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -1.0
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -4.5
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 0.0
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.0
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 -0.25
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4 -0.5
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5 -1.0
score RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL 0.0


# ============================
# URI Blocklists (URIBL)
# ============================

score URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL 4.5
score URIBL_BLACK 4.0
score URIBL_CR_SURBL 3.5
score URIBL_CSS 3.0
score URIBL_CSS_A 5.0
score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_BOTCC 5.5
score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_MALW 5.5
score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_PHISH 5.5
score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_REDIR 2.0
score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_SPAM 5.5
score URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED 0.0
score URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS 0.0
score URIBL_DBL_BOTNETCC 5.5
score URIBL_DBL_ERROR 0.0
score URIBL_DBL_MALWARE 5.0
score URIBL_DBL_PHISH 6.0
score URIBL_DBL_SPAM 6.0
score URIBL_GREY 0.25
score URIBL_MW_SURBL 5.0
score URIBL_PH_SURBL 5.0
score URIBL_RED 2.0
score URIBL_RHS_DOB 2.0
score URIBL_SBL 4.0
score URIBL_SBL_A 3.0
score URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED 0.0
score URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS 0.0


# ============================
# Email Authentication (SPF/DKIM/ARC)
# ============================

score ARC_INVALID 2.0
score ARC_SIGNED 0.0
score ARC_VALID 0.0
score DKIM_ADSP_ALL 2.0
score DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED 1.5
score DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN 4.5
score DKIM_INVALID 3.5
score DKIM_SIGNED 0.0
score DKIM_VALID 0.0
score DKIM_VALID_AU 0.0
score DKIM_VALID_EF 0.0
score DKIM_VERIFIED 0.0
score DKIMWL_BL 3.0
score DKIMWL_WL_HIGH -4.5
score DKIMWL_WL_MED -3.5
score DKIMWL_WL_MEDHI -4.0
score FORGED_SPF_HELO 4.0
score NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED 2.0
score SPF_FAIL 4.5
score SPF_HELO_FAIL 3.0
score SPF_HELO_NEUTRAL 1.0
score SPF_HELO_NONE 0.0
score SPF_HELO_PASS -0.25
score SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL 4.0
score SPF_NEUTRAL 0.0
score SPF_NONE 1.0
score SPF_PASS 0.0
score SPF_SOFTFAIL 1.0
score T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR 0.0
score T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR 0.0
score T_SPF_PERMERROR 0.0
score T_SPF_TEMPERROR 0.0
score USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL -4.5
score USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL -4.0
score DMARC_FAIL 5.0
score KAM_DMARC_STATUS 2.0
score KAM_SHORT 1.5
score KAM_DMARC_REJECT 3.5
score KAM_DMARC_QUARANTINE 2.5
score KAM_REPUTATION 2.0

# ============================
# HTML & MIME Structure Rules
# ============================

score BODY_URI_ONLY 2.5
score DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO 1.5
score HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST 0.0
score HTML_FONT_SIZE_LARGE 2.0
score HTML_FONT_TINY_NORDNS 0.0
score HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04 1.0
score HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08 1.5
score HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16 2.5
score HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24 3.5
score HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 4.5
score HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02 0.25
score HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04 0.25
score HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06 0.25
score HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08 0.25
score HTML_MESSAGE 0.0
score HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG 0.5
score HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10 0.5
score HTML_OBFUSCATE_10_20 1.0
score HTML_OBFUSCATE_20_30 2.0
score HTML_OBFUSCATE_30_40 2.5
score HTML_OBFUSCATE_50_60 3.0
score HTML_OBFUSCATE_70_80 3.5
score HTML_OBFUSCATE_90_100 4.0
score HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1 2.0
score HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2 3.0
score HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3 3.0
score HTML_TAG_BALANCE_CENTER 0.25
score MIME_BASE64_TEXT 1.25
score MIME_HEADER_CTYPE_ONLY 0.5
score MIME_HTML_MOSTLY 0.0
score MIME_HTML_ONLY 0.0
score MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 0.25
score MPART_ALT_DIFF 0.75
score MPART_ALT_DIFF_COUNT 0.5
score T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID 0.25
score T_TVD_MIME_EPI 0.25


# ============================
# Header / Envelope Heuristics
# ============================

score HDRS_MISSP 4.0
score HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS 0.0
score HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM 3.0
score MAILING_LIST_MULTI 0.25
score MISSING_DATE 2.5
score MISSING_FROM 2.0
score MISSING_HB_SEP 2.0
score MISSING_HEADERS 6.0
score MISSING_MID 1.0
score MISSING_SUBJECT 1.0
score MSGID_OUTLOOK_INVALID 2.5
score NO_FM_NAME_IP_HOSTN 2.0
score REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 2.5
score TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP 2.5
score TO_NO_BRKTS_MSFT 2.5
score TVD_RCVD_IP 1.0


# ============================
# Freemail & Identity Rules
# ============================

score FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD 3.0
score FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK 3.0
score FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 3.0
score FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT 0.75
score FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO 3.5
score FREEMAIL_FROM 0.0
score FREEMAIL_REPLY 0.5
score FREEMAIL_REPLYTO 1.75
score FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT 0.0
score FROM_EXCESS_BASE64 2.5
score FROM_FMBLA_NEWDOM 2.5
score FROM_FMBLA_NEWDOM14 3.0
score FROM_FMBLA_NEWDOM28 2.5
score FROM_GOV_SPOOF 3.5
score FROM_LOCAL_DIGITS 1.5
score FROM_LOCAL_HEX 1.5
score FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL 1.5
score FROM_MISSP_EH_MATCH 3.0
score FROM_MISSP_SPF_FAIL 4.0
score FROM_MISSPACED 3.0
score FROM_NTLD_REPLY_FREEMAIL 3.0
score FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS 1.0
score FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD 2.0
score FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP 2.0
score GB_FREEMAIL_DISPTO 3.5
score GB_FREEMAIL_DISPTO_NOTFREEM 3.5
score HK_NAME_MR_MRS 2.5
score HK_RANDOM_FROM 1.5
score UNDISC_FREEM 2.5


# ============================
# Scam, Phishing & Social Engineering
# ============================

score ADVANCE_FEE_2 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_2_NEW_FORM 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_2_NEW_MONEY 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_3 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW_FORM 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW_MONEY 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_4_NEW 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_5_NEW 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_5_NEW_FRM_MNY 3.0
score ADVANCE_FEE_5_NEW_MONEY 3.0
score BILLION_DOLLARS 1.0
score BITCOIN_DEADLINE 5.5
score BITCOIN_SPAM_03 5.5
score DEAR_FRIEND 2.0
score DEAR_SOMETHING 2.0
score DIET_1 1.0
score FUZZY_BITCOIN 2.5
score FUZZY_BTC_WALLET 2.5
score FUZZY_CLICK_HERE 1.5
score FUZZY_CREDIT 2.0
score FUZZY_IMPORTANT 2.5
score FUZZY_SECURITY 2.75
score FUZZY_UNSUBSCRIBE 1.0
score FUZZY_WALLET 2.0
score JOIN_MILLIONS 2.0
score LOTS_OF_MONEY 0.0
score MONEY_BACK 1.0
score NA_DOLLARS 1.0
score PDS_BTC_ID 4.0
score STOX_BOUND_090909_B 1.5
score SUBJ_ALL_CAPS 0.5
score SUBJ_AS_SEEN 0.75
score SUBJ_ATTENTION 1.5
score SUBJ_DOLLARS 0.25
score SUBJ_YOUR_DEBT 2.5
score SUBJ_YOUR_FAMILY 0.75
score THIS_AD 0.5
score TVD_PH_BODY_ACCOUNTS_PRE 2.0
score TVD_PH_BODY_META 1.5
score UNCLAIMED_MONEY 4.0
score URG_BIZ 1.5
score VFY_ACCT_NORDNS 3.0


# ============================
# Transport / Network Reputation Rules
# ============================

score CK_HELO_GENERIC 1.5
score HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR 3.0
score HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 3.0
score HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP 2.0
score KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS 4.0
score NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELO 3.0
score PDS_BAD_THREAD_QP_64 1.5
score PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP 0.5
score RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH 1.75
score RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP 4.0
score RDNS_DYNAMIC 2.5
score RDNS_LOCALHOST 3.5
score RDNS_NONE 2.5
score SPAMMY_XMAILER 2.75
score TBIRD_SUSP_MIME_BDRY 2.5
score UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 0.0


# ============================
# URI & Link Obfuscation
# ============================

score GOOG_REDIR_NORDNS 2.5
score HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH 1.5
score NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP 3.0
score NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR 3.0
score PDS_SHORT_SPOOFED_URL 3.0
score SENDGRID_REDIR 0.25
score T_PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD 2.5
score TRACKER_ID 0.25
score URI_HEX 2.0
score URI_NO_WWW_BIZ_CGI 2.5
score URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI 2.5
score URI_NOVOWEL 0.5
score URI_OBFU_WWW 3.0
score URI_PHISH 5.5
score URI_TRUNCATED 3.0
score URI_WP_HACKED 6.0
score WEIRD_PORT 4.5


# ============================
# Miscellaneous Heuristics & Content Triggers
# ============================

score ALIBABA_IMG_NOT_RCVD_ALI 2.5
score BIGNUM_EMAILS_FREEM 2.5
score BIGNUM_EMAILS_MANY 2.5
score DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 1.5
score DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 1.5
score DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 1.5
score ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH -4.0
score FILL_THIS_FORM 0.5
score FILL_THIS_FORM_LONG 0.5
score INVESTMENT_ADVICE 0.5
score MALWARE_NORDNS 5.0
score PLING_QUERY 1.0
score SHOPIFY_IMG_NOT_RCVD_SFY 0.75
score STOX_REPLY_TYPE 2.0
score STOX_REPLY_TYPE_WITHOUT_QUOTES 3.0
score SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS 2.5
score T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT 0.25
score T_REMOTE_IMAGE 0.25
score TVD_SPACE_RATIO_MINFP -0.25


# ============================
# Spam Eating Monkey DNSBL lists
# ============================

header RCVD_IN_SEM_BACKSCATTER eval:check_rbl('sembackscatter-lastexternal','backscatter.spameatingmonkey.net')
describe RCVD_IN_SEM_BACKSCATTER Received from an IP listed by Spam Eating Monkey Backscatter list
tflags RCVD_IN_SEM_BACKSCATTER net
score RCVD_IN_SEM_BACKSCATTER 3.0

header RCVD_IN_SEM_BLACK eval:check_rbl('semblack-lastexternal','bl.spameatingmonkey.net')
describe RCVD_IN_SEM_BLACK Received from an IP listed by Spam Eating Monkey Blocklist
tflags RCVD_IN_SEM_BLACK net
score RCVD_IN_SEM_BLACK 3.0

header RCVD_IN_SEM_NETBLACK eval:check_rbl('semnetblack-lastexternal','netbl.spameatingmonkey.net')
describe RCVD_IN_SEM_NETBLACK Received from an IP listed by Spam Eating Monkeys Network Blocklist
tflags RCVD_IN_SEM_NETBLACK net
score RCVD_IN_SEM_NETBLACK 1.5

urirhssub SEM_FRESH30 fresh30.spameatingmonkey.net. A 2
body SEM_FRESH30 eval:check_uridnsbl('SEM_FRESH30')
describe SEM_FRESH30 Contains a domain registered less than 30 days ago
tflags SEM_FRESH30 net
score SEM_FRESH30 3.5

urirhssub SEM_URI_BLACK uribl.spameatingmonkey.net. A 2
body SEM_URI_BLACK eval:check_uridnsbl('SEM_URI')
describe SEM_URI_BLACK Contains a URI listed by Spam Eating Monkeys URI Blocklist
tflags SEM_URI_BLACK net
score SEM_URI_BLACK 2.5


# ============================
# JunkEmailFilter HostKarma DNSBL & DNSWL
# ============================

header __RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA eval:check_rbl('hostkarma','hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com.')
describe __RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA Sender listed in JunkEmailFilter
tflags __RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA net

header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL eval:check_rbl_sub('hostkarma','127.0.0.2')
describe RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BLACK
tflags RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL net
score RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL 1.0

header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BR eval:check_rbl_sub('hostkarma','127.0.0.4')
describe RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BR Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-BROWN
tflags RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BR net
score RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BR 0.5

header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W eval:check_rbl_sub('hostkarma','127.0.0.1')
describe RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-WHITE
tflags RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W net nice
score RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -1.0


# ============================
# SpamRATS DNSBL
# ============================

header __RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS eval:check_rbl('spamrats','all.spamrats.com.')
describe __RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS SPAMRATS: sender is listed in SpamRATS
tflags __RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS net
reuse __RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS

header RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_DYNA eval:check_rbl_sub('spamrats','127.0.0.36')
describe RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_DYNA RATS-Dyna: sent directly from dynamic IP address
tflags RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_DYNA net
reuse RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_DYNA
score RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_DYNA 2.25

header RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_NOPTR eval:check_rbl_sub('spamrats','127.0.0.37')
describe RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_NOPTR RATS-NoPtr: sender has no reverse DNS
tflags RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_NOPTR net
reuse RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_NOPTR
score RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_NOPTR 2.5

header RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_SPAM eval:check_rbl_sub('spamrats','127.0.0.38')
describe RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_SPAM RATS-Spam: sender is a spam source
tflags RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_SPAM net
reuse RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_SPAM
score RCVD_IN_SPAMRATS_SPAM 4.5



# ============================
# Ascams RBLs (IP Reputation)
# ============================

header RCVD_IN_ASCAMS_BLOCK eval:check_rbl('ascams_block','block.ascams.com.')
describe RCVD_IN_ASCAMS_BLOCK Sender listed in Ascams Block RBL
tflags RCVD_IN_ASCAMS_BLOCK net
score RCVD_IN_ASCAMS_BLOCK 0.0

header RCVD_IN_ASCAMS_DROP eval:check_rbl('ascams_white','dnsbl.ascams.com.')
describe RCVD_IN_ASCAMS_DROP Sender listed in Ascams DROP list
tflags RCVD_IN_ASCAMS_DROP nice net
score RCVD_IN_ASCAMS_DROP 3.5


# ============================
# DroneBL DNSBL
# ============================

header RCVD_IN_DRONEBL eval:check_rbl('dronebl','dnsbl.dronebl.org.')
describe RCVD_IN_DRONEBL Sender listed in DroneBL (suspected bot/malware)
tflags RCVD_IN_DRONEBL net
score RCVD_IN_DRONEBL 2.0


# ============================
# GBUDB Truncate DNSBL
# ============================

header RCVD_IN_GBUDB_TRUNCATE eval:check_rbl('gbudb','truncate.gbudb.net.')
describe RCVD_IN_GBUDB_TRUNCATE Sender listed in GBUDB Truncate
tflags RCVD_IN_GBUDB_TRUNCATE net
score RCVD_IN_GBUDB_TRUNCATE 5.0


# ============================
# Usenix S5H
# ============================

header RCVD_IN_S5H_BL eval:check_rbl_txt('s5hbl','all.s5h.net.')
describe RCVD_IN_S5H_BL Listed at all.s5h.net
tflags RCVD_IN_S5H_BL net
score RCVD_IN_S5H_BL 1.5


# ============================
# Backscatterer.org
# ============================

header RCVD_IN_BACKSCATTERER eval:check_rbl('backscatterer','ips.backscatterer.org.')
describe RCVD_IN_BACKSCATTERER IP listed in Backscatterer (backscatter spam)
tflags RCVD_IN_BACKSCATTERER net
score RCVD_IN_BACKSCATTERER 2.25

[p44]

@imc67 So were we using the same rules from @d19dotca ?

For now I removed from all istances, but in future I want to keep only rules who works in local, not requiring any outbound connection.