I think documenting the simple way to disable it makes sense, yes. Which command do you do that worked for you and I can look at adding it to a 3.4.5.pre file. -- Kevin A. McGrail Member, Apache Software Foundation Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:34 PM Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 14, 2020, at 12:08 PM, M. Omer GOLGELI <o...@chronos.com.tr> > wrote: > > > > July 14, 2020 6:07 PM, "Kevin A. McGrail" <kmcgr...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> The question you ask is exactly why we have the DNSBL Inclusion policy > and require the free for > >> some model. > >> > >> We might need to kick up the need for the BLOCKED rule with > instructions in that description on how > >> to disable the rules. What are your thoughts on that? > >> > > > > Don't get me wrong, I use them in the scoring process as well and I'm > glad to use them along with a few others as I'm not that hard bent on > keeping everything free. > > > > And if I hit the limits somehow, I'll either pay for them or turn them > off. > > > > But there will always be people that doesn't want it. > > Or those who wouldn't want to see their OSS software relies on > commercial products. > > Or there will be those who does this non-commercially. > > Or there will be people who installed it as part of their OSS mail > product and doesn't know that there's such a limit etc. > > > > So for that matter, maybe these can be left for the admins decision to > enable them after installation. > > Or all users should be made aware of these limitations in a better > manner and clearly for each semi-commercial RBL used. > > Since the consensus is that this is kind of a “turn it loose out of the > box” situation, I think a nice compromise would be huge commented chunks > around settings that would disable any commercial services that will start > sending nastygrams if you are outside of their (sometimes complex and kind > of opaque “free” use case). > > I do so wish some of those folks would take spamtraps in trade. We see > spam from sources even the most expensive lists don’t see for at least > 15-20 minutes - valuable data, IMHO. :) > > Charles > > > > > </2¢> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M. Omer GOLGELI > >
