On 2022-04-11 at 11:23:40 UTC-0400 (Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:23:40 -0700)
Michael Peddemors <mich...@linuxmagic.com>
is rumored to have said:
On 2022-04-11 06:18, bugzilla-dae...@spamassassin.apache.org wrote:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7477
Henrik Krohns <apa...@hege.li> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |Future
--- Comment #6 from Henrik Krohns <apa...@hege.li> ---
Would need some cleaning up, but no time to look for 4.0.0. Is there
_really_
demand for this feature, when resolvers are configurable pretty much
everywhere.. postponing..
There is demand out there I am sure, with recent changes to some RBL
operators policies, and things like DoH out in the wild.
There can be cases where certain RBL's are blocked from queries at the
upstream provider.
Just an opinion.. Sometimes SA administrators may not have operational
control over resolver decisions.
I think it would be irresponsible to put this in SA and that it would
cause more trouble than it can be worth.
Mail systems should use local caching resolvers under common control
with the mail system. They SHOULD NOT use any resolver with 'safety'
features designed to protect end users by breaking resolution. They
SHOULD NOT use unaccountable free resolvers. FOR ANYTHING.
This sort of thing belongs in a dedicated resolver with forwarding
options like dnsmasq or unbound, NOT in SA. I don't think we should be
providing support for systems that are fundamentally misdesigned in
order to make the use of a 3rd-party resolver a top priority.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
