On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Jonas Eckerman wrote: > John Rudd wrote: > > > Question 1: Someone suggested that, for botnet_pass_domains, I not > > re-invent the wheel. SA already has several whitelist options > > (whitelist* and sare_whitelist* were specifically mentioned). They > > suggested that I leverage them. My first (two part) question is: > > Personally, I prefer to have a plugin be aböe to function independantly > from other addons (such as sare whitelists). > ... > If it can be done with meta rules you could just put a few commented > examples in Botnet.cf instead of having to expand the plugin. > > Or... You could make a separate file with contributed examples and > include that in the Botnet package. This way there could be meta rules > with DKIM, whitelists, p0f, ice cream, dark beer or whatever people send > you without cluttering Botnet.cf and without ýou having to test and take > responsibility for everything (just remember to put a disclaimer at the > top if it).
I vote for the separate file / examples as well. Especially the examples or common ones to help us get a working system that handles general whitelisting as well. Per the botnet_pass_domains, this will be a great enhancement. Maybe you could collect false positives reported to you and include a "starting point" of common domains to exempt as well. It's tough to find out all the valid domains out there that still trip the botnet filter on your own. :) > Question 2: someone asked why my module is "Botnet" instead of "Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Botnet". The current method is simple as you just drop the 2 files into /etc/mail/spamassassin and you're done. But, making it standard as long as it works is fine with me. Thanks for a great plugin! Rob
