How very subversive... On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 12:58 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > There is some question among spamassassin developers* on whether or not > it is acceptable to increase the network load of spamassassin, by one > DNS query per email, for existing releases (version 3.3.x), by adding > one DNS blacklist to the rule set via sa-update.
Since you keep stressing the one, 1, single DNS query per message, I cannot help but nit-pick -- please do have a look at the rules you're talking about. Or maybe, just re-read your own comment 1 on bug 6400. It's not a single query. > If it does get added, it will be following a post to this list. If you > want to ensure you do not use this blacklist if it does get added, you can > preemptively disable it with: You forgot to disable and meta-out the sub-rules, most notably including the actual check_rbl() eval rules doing the queries. You just disabled the scores but did not eliminate the DNS queries. I have pointed out such omission in the past, a couple times. > We would prefer to only add this blacklist to future releases, version > 3.4.x+. But we currently do not have a way to maintain two separate sets > of rule updates. So our options are: Discussing exactly this on the dev@ list would have been quite some idea, don't ya think? > 4) Develop a way to maintain two separate rule sets. May, realistically, > be impossible. I wonder how hard running the re-scoring twice could be -- one time with the relevant rules snipered from the mass-check logs. Well, for the time we keep updating 3.3.x update channels in addition to the then-current 3.4.x, which is something not even discussed. > 5) Add new blacklists to 3.4.x rules, and stop providing 3.3.x updates. We > can't expect people to just cut over suddenly like that. True on the latter. However, there have been no plans (or discussion) yet about generating frequent rule updates for the current stable, *and* previous release. Stopping the updates does NOT suddenly invalidate the previous version. People today still happily running 3.2.x can tell you. Ironically, you're the one who pushed for 3.2.x EOL. Now your aim seems to be not only to maintain two stable versions, but also to keep generating rule updates long-term. > Bug discussing adding this DNSBL: > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6400 Tracking the bug's status, not so much discussion. Heavy-load discussion should better be done on the dev@ list, not in bugzilla. > * This might sound like implication that I'm a spamassassin developer. I'm > not. I do not have commit access. -- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
