On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:46, Bill Landry<b...@inetmsg.com> wrote: > McDonald, Dan wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:40 -0700, John Rudd wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 21:11, Bill Landry<b...@inetmsg.com> wrote: >>>> Jake Maul wrote: >>>>> Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using >>>>> Botnet on this server for several months without issue. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :) >> >> The patch was originally developed when SpamAssassin's resolver library >> was patched to shorten the timeouts. I suggested the changes to mimic >> the SpamAssassin code. >> >>>> Even though Mark Martinec had provided John Rudd with a nice, neat patch >>>> for botnet.pm well over a year ago to resolve this issue, John has not >>>> opted to take the 5 minutes that is necessary to fix botnet by applying >>>> the patch. He is no longer maintaining botnet, and it has become an >>>> orphaned plugin that is in serious need of repair. >> >> If you feel that way about it, fork it. I personally don't feel that >> way about John's work. >>> That's a rather presumptuous statement to make. >>> >>> The plug-in works in the vast majority of cases, and I've had higher >>> priority things to work on. But the plug-in has not been abandoned (no >>> are you qualified to make that statement), nor is it in _serious_ need >>> of repair. >>> >>> Nor do you know how much pre-release work (testing, etc.) I put into a >>> release, whether or not that's the solution to the specific problem I >>> want to go with, etc., >> >> Correct. A more elegant solution would be to use the parallelizing >> resolver library built into SpamAssassin, but that would increase the >> complexity significantly, and take a lot more time to get right. I know >> I don't have the time to do that sort of development properly, and I >> fully sympathize with John's priorities. > > John has been citing other priorities for 2 years (second verse, same as > the first), and it has been even longer than that since the plugin has > been updated
If you're going to criticize other people, you might want to not pull numbers out of your ass, and still to concrete realities. It has been less than 2 years. > And the results of this effort were reported to John and summarily > ignored. Not ignored. Noted. But they go in the opposite direction from the one I plan to take. Further, the patch is available for those who have an immediate need. >From my observation, it's a niche need (and thus not serious, contrary to your previous statement). Only a very few people have reported the problem, and every time they do, the patch is immediately referenced. In my own use, I use the stock Botnet 0.8 on servers that are scanning 10 messages per second on average, and Botnet is not slowing down those transactions. As said elsewhere, the primary issue is how DNS is being set up, both by the sender and the recipient. But that's outside of the scope of Botnet. Within Botnet, the actual thing to be solved is moving toward SA's internal DNS routines, not expending effort on improving its interaction with Net::DNS. The latter is addressing a surface issue, not an actual problem. For those who can't wait, feel it's a glaring problem, and they have some reason why they can't address it at the DNS level, they can AND SHOULD apply the patch. It's available. That's one of the joys of open source, Bill. Get with the 21st century. > This issue has been unresolved for way too long. No, it has not. > All of this, in my mind, Well, there's your problem... > Whatever, just fix it or pull it. Use the patch it, provide an actual fix*, or fork it. (* ie. provide an actual fix, tested under load for reliability, that replaces Net::DNS with SA's internal DNS routines) I have in the past incorporated fixes/contributions/suggestions that worked with the direction I was going. I'll happily do it again, under that same condition. While I think that exact patch is a great resource, appreciate that someone went to the trouble to provide it, and think it's a great thing that it's publicly available ... I will not be incorporating that fix into the Botnet releases. It doesn't go in the direction I want to, and it is not a significant problem that demands an immediate update. Further, Bill, I don't answer to you for my time constraints. Now quit your whining and put your money where your mouth is. If it's so important, then provide a fix that replaces Net::DNS with SA's internal DNS routines, and I'll use it. If it's not important enough to you to drop everything you're doing, and work on it, then you have no business trying badger me into it.
