Dear release team,

On Saturday 06 September 2008 16:08, Mika Tiainen wrote:
> Package: policyd-weight
> Version: 0.1.14.17-3
> Severity: important
>
> http://dsbl.org/node/3
>
> lists.dsbl.org needs to be removed from the default blacklists. You should
> also ask for a lenny freeze exception to avoid the same situation as
> #471645.

is there a chance for a frezze exception fixing the issue? The diff is 
attached.

Thanks and with kind regards, Jan.
-- 
Never write mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you have been warned!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT d-- s+: a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE
Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI- D++ G++ e++ h-- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
diff -Nur old/debian/changelog new/debian/changelog
--- old/debian/changelog	2008-09-07 14:02:51.000000000 +0200
+++ new/debian/changelog	2008-09-07 14:03:08.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+policyd-weight (0.1.14.17-4) unstable; urgency=low
+
+  * Remove list.dsbl.org from default DNSBL list (Closes: #498037).
+  * Leave hint about blocking lists in README.Debian
+
+ -- Jan Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:49:39 +0200
+
 policyd-weight (0.1.14.17-3) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * Updating standards version to 3.8.0, no changes needed
diff -Nur old/debian/patches/00list new/debian/patches/00list
--- old/debian/patches/00list	2008-09-07 14:02:51.000000000 +0200
+++ new/debian/patches/00list	2008-09-07 14:03:08.000000000 +0200
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
 01_change_lockpath.dpatch
+02_remove_dsbl.dpatch
diff -Nur old/debian/patches/02_remove_dsbl.dpatch new/debian/patches/02_remove_dsbl.dpatch
--- old/debian/patches/02_remove_dsbl.dpatch	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ new/debian/patches/02_remove_dsbl.dpatch	2008-09-07 14:03:08.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+#! /bin/sh /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch-run
+## 02_remove_dsbl.dpatch by Jan Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+##
+## DP: Remove list.dsbl.org from DNSBL list
+
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
+diff -urNad policyd-weight-0.1.14.17~/policyd-weight policyd-weight-0.1.14.17/policyd-weight
+--- policyd-weight-0.1.14.17~/policyd-weight	2008-09-07 13:36:18.000000000 +0200
++++ policyd-weight-0.1.14.17/policyd-weight	2008-09-07 13:37:26.000000000 +0200
+@@ -372,7 +372,6 @@
+     'sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org',   4.35,       -1.5,        'SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS',
+     'bl.spamcop.net',         3.75,       -1.5,        'SPAMCOP',
+     'dnsbl.njabl.org',        4.25,       -1.5,        'BL_NJABL',
+-    'list.dsbl.org',          4.35,          0,        'DSBL_ORG',
+     'ix.dnsbl.manitu.net',    4.35,          0,        'IX_MANITU'
+ );
+ 
diff -Nur old/debian/README.Debian new/debian/README.Debian
--- old/debian/README.Debian	2008-09-07 14:02:51.000000000 +0200
+++ new/debian/README.Debian	2008-09-07 14:03:08.000000000 +0200
@@ -4,6 +4,25 @@
 You can create a file /etc/policyd-weight.conf with different setting from
 default (can be got with "/usr/sbin/policyd-weight defaults").
 
+Please keep track of the used Blocking Lists, default there are:
+
+    'pbl.spamhaus.org',       3.25,          0,        'DYN_PBL_SPAMHAUS',
+    'sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org',   4.35,       -1.5,        'SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS',
+    'bl.spamcop.net',         3.75,       -1.5,        'SPAMCOP',
+    'dnsbl.njabl.org',        4.25,       -1.5,        'BL_NJABL',
+    'ix.dnsbl.manitu.net',    4.35,          0,        'IX_MANITU'
+
+and
+
+    'multi.surbl.org',             4,        0,        'SURBL',
+    'rhsbl.ahbl.org',              4,        0,        'AHBL',
+    'dsn.rfc-ignorant.org',        3.5,      0,        'DSN_RFCI',
+    'postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org', 0.1,      0,        'PM_RFCI',
+    'abuse.rfc-ignorant.org',      0.1,      0,        'ABUSE_RFCI'
+
+Some of them maybe disappear during the stable release, in this case you need
+to redefine @dnsbl_score and/or @rhsbl_score in /etc/policyd-weight.conf.
+
 If you stop/restart policyd-weight via init script, the cache instance will be
 terminated. The cache is NOT terminated with dstop/drestart.
 

Attachment: pgppPvujNKrt7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to