On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 12:52:11PM -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > In what way it is harmful for those rules to be left in place, given that SA > disables 'blocked' DNSBL servers when it encounters them.
well, for one, it needlessly wastes postmaster's time analyzing and trying to troubleshoot them for many SA installations (i.e. actively managed ones) > I'm not a fan of Validity and I don't even believe that they have been > honest here or have acted in good faith. But whether or not we change the > default rules is not based on how trusted the Validity folks are or even > how useless their lists have become. Why not? That sounds exactly as a reason for changing what list SA uses and advertises. "reputation by association" is a thing. > I'm always eager to make changes that actually improve SA. I am much more > uneasy about making changes that are entirely cosmetic. How about at least setting their score to 0 (and mentioning it in next release notes)? That should: - disable running the rules and tagging messages (and thus wasting time troubleshooting them), and at the same time - would NOT be breaking meta rules that users might have made (it would just be like VALIDITY never detected a spam), and - users could also EASILY set the scores to some non-zero number if they wanted to continue to using it -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
