Matt Kettler writes: > Justin Mason wrote: > > OK, we really need to figure out some way to kill these FAQs off. Every > > week, someone asks a question about why SpamAssassin is killing their > > server, and most of the time the answer is "stop using blacklist.cf and > > blacklist-uri.cf". If 1 person is asking the question, chances are > > there's another 10 people who aren't asking, and who are just ditching > > SpamAssassin entirely. :( > > > > > > RDJ folks -- can you zero out, or remove, those two files from the list > > entirely? It doesn't seem to matter if we say "don't use them" on > > our websites, people will set up RDJ to download everything anyway > > it seems. > > > That will help a little. However, a lot of folks using RDJ are using > really old versions. Remember how many folks started posting to the list > after I modified antidrug.cf to generate errors? This happened long > after I got them to modify RDJ to not include it. > > There also seem to be a some sites out there that have copies of RDJ > which aren't recent. For example, Fortress Systems (fsl.com, commercial > MailScanner) still has an old copy on their "resources" site that still > supports antidrug,cf and if enabled will to download antidrug.cf from > comcast. (The updated version lives on sandgnat.com) They're default > config doesn't have it in the trusted rulesets, but they really > shouldn't have support for it in their script at all anymore. > > (In other news, I finally canceled the comcast account on Tuesday. So > that one is now completely out of my control. Fortress Systems, are you > listening? I'll try posting on the MailScanner list later..) > > > I think I'll add a new question right on the top of the FAQ list > > about this... > > > > What else can we do? > > > Add code to generate a lint warning any time a .cf file over 1mb is read > unless a config option is set to silence it? > > Possibly even have this as as: > warn_conffile_maxsize (speced in KB, default 1024) > > Users that want to use absurdly large files can just raise the number.. > > We could do the same with a warning based on rule count, and/or > white/blacklist entries. > > Of course, we might need to do a little research as to what's > reasonable, but certainly the numbers in the blacklist files are a good > example of what's not reasonable..
+1, this is a good idea. Any one .cf file should not be that large. --j.
