Oh, I see now, I thought it was only testing the sender.

Yes, one of the domains mentioned in the message body was listed.

Thanks!

Claudia

John Hardin escribió:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Claudia Burman wrote:
>
>> ...if the URI is not listed in www.uribl.com ?
>>
>> Return-Path:
>> Received: from [...] (sending to my server)
>> Received: from pikachu.nic.ar (unknown [140.191.48.11])
>> by maderna.nic.ar (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E07D7049;
>> Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:19 -0200 (ARST)
>> Received: by pikachu.nic.ar (Postfix, from userid 2)
>> id 0C59B17873; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:18 -0200 (ARST)
>> Subject: Solicitud de Modificacion de Datos de xxxx.com.ar Recibida
>> From: tramites-ack@nic.ar
>> To: tramites-ack@nic.ar
>> Reply-To: info@nic.ar
>> Errors-To: domar_errors@mrecic.gov.ar
>> Message-Id: <20081029142319.0C59B17873@pikachu.nic.ar>
>> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:23:18 -0200 (ARST)
>> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at xxxxx.com
>> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.469 required=5
>> tests=[DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479,
>> DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44, EXCLAMACION_ES=1, NO_REAL_NAME=0.55,
>> URIBL_BLACK=3]
>> X-Spam-Score: 6.469
>> X-Spam-Level: ******
>> X-Spam-Flag: YES

>
> Where's a URI in that?
>
> Look in the message body for URIs and/or domain names and check those
> against www.uribl.com.
>
>> Another message from the same domain doesn't hit the rule

>
> URIBL != DNSBL
>