On 06/27, Blaine Fleming wrote: > > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
> That requires an account and the account creation page states that it > should be activated within three days. I'm really not feeling up to > taking another week of abuse if I can avoid it. Yup, I was just providing references, not asking you to do anything. On 06/27, Axb wrote: > I've disabled the rules in someone else's sandbox. > (apologies to SMF) Blaine, what this means is, next time an sa-update is generated and everybody downloads it, these SEM rules should be removed. So, your load should drop within 24 hours? We still should do an emergency update. And there's no way for them to come back. And they shouldn't be re-enabled for testing until this problem is completely straightened out, so it doesn't happen again. > PMC/Commiters, if this is useless , pls undo. > I know what it feels like to be hammered by qjueries - not amusing. Looks good to me, it's trunk commit r1140321. On 06/27, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > On 6/27/2011 10:39 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > > >In short, this sounds like things are working and unless Blaine is > >seeing a rule being published that isn't T_*, we don't have an issue. > > Things are not working properly, and unfortunately we need to do an > emergency sa-update push. > > score T_RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK 0 > score T_URIBL_SEM 0 > score T_URIBL_SEM_FRESH 0 > score T_URIBL_SEM_FRESH_10 0 > score T_URIBL_SEM_FRESH_15 0 > score T_URIBL_SEM_RED 0 > > The workaround is different this time. If you use the previous > workaround without the T_, it still queries SEM's DNS servers. Who has the access to do an emergency sa-update? Is it only Daryl? -- "Forget not that the earth delights to feel your bare feet and the winds long to play with your hair." - Kahlil Gibran http://www.ChaosReigns.com
