Hi Marc, No I've already done that. The confusing part for me about RW's email was that he criticized my proposed solution without acknowledging the problem it was trying to solve. Simply saying "it's not sensible" doesn't tell us where to go from here. Usually people propose an alternative solution, or explain why the problem is not important, or explain in more detail what the proposed solution would entail. The main point was that there is a problem, and RW did not acknowledge this. He didn't even explain why he thought the solution was not sensible. That's not facilitative.
John Hardin (last email on thread) acknowledged one of RW's points and re-explained the existence of a problem, but I felt this to be overgenerous. I felt that if RW wanted to say something, he should try again. Not that there didn't seem to be glimmers of something useful - how did he know that most of the look-ups were successful? But on the whole his emails failed to demonstrate an understanding of what *I* was saying. Rather than wasting everyone's time re-explaining myself I just told him I wasn't getting it. I don't know who RW is or what relationship any of the people I've been in communication with have to the maintainer of this project. FWIW, nobody has answered my question of whether I should submit a bug report on Bugzilla. Thanks. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:17:11AM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote: > I think that they are suggesting is that you set up your own DNS server. and > it's a good suggestion. I use PowerDNS. > > On 01/24/17 15:31, frede...@ofb.net wrote: > > RW, I'm not really understanding you either. You seem to enjoy keeping > > people guessing... > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 06:46:16PM +0000, RW wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:38:44 -0800 (PST) > > > John Hardin wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2017, RW wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:04:16 -0800 > > > > > frede...@ofb.net wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the replies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I open a bugzilla bug for this? > > > > > > > > > > > > I remember seeing URIBL_BLOCKED once. > > > > > > > > > > > > But lately it doesn't appear. I'm not sure what would go in "|| > > > > > > etc." > > > > > The others misunderstood what you are asking for, > > > > I understood what he was asking. > > > I was giving you benefit of the doubt. > > > > > > > The "etc" in my (humorous) proposed > > > > solution was a test for DNS timeouts, which I haven't looked into. > > > > > > > > > it can't be done that way, > > > > Because DNS timeout errors aren't exposed to an eval? > > > > > > I meant that there's nothing that can currently complete the meta rule. > > > > > > > > > > > and it's not sensible anyway. > > > > Why not? Informational rules could help troubleshooting, especially > > > > if you don't have access to the server logs. > > > It's not sensible to have an informational rule that's triggered by > > > URIBL_BLOCKED or packet loss and have it tell the user not to use a > > > public cache. > > > > > > > -- > Marc Perkel - Sales/Support > supp...@junkemailfilter.com > http://www.junkemailfilter.com > Junk Email Filter dot com > 415-992-3400 >
