Kevin, Thanks for the response and concerns here.
We've opened up a Bugzilla ticket here https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7757 regarding the return codes and it looks like it has been accepted. The DQS plugin is distributed as an external commercial plugin for SpamAssassin https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/spamassassin/CustomPlugins but we do offer this also in free access method for those users impacted by ranges that we have been forced to block from the public mirrors due to abuse. Also to reiterate the information from Simon's post, ranges that have been blocked by the public mirrors will receive an NXDOMAIN return rather than the return codes to prevent any issues with out of date/improperly developed software. Please hit me up off-list if you'd like any additional clarification or have other concerns and we can work together on it. Regards, Stith On 10/30/2019 10:58 AM, Kevin A. McGrail via mailop wrote: > > Definitely confusing so ignore any previous responses I sent :-) > > Speaking for the Apache SpamAssassin project, I want to make sure this > is compliant with our free for some RBL inclusion policy [1] at > SpamAssassin but I think the 3 follow-up emails clarified it DOES work > out of the box for low volume without a key. > > I would also suggest you look at the URIBL_BLOCKED rule and returning > a quad that allows an administrator to know why they are blocked. We > can add a rule for that. Can you make a suggested rule and email to > the SA Dev list or put in a bugzilla request, Please? > > [1] See > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/spamassassin/DnsBlocklistsInclusionPolicy > > Regards, > > KAM > > On 10/30/2019 10:20 AM, Simon via mailop wrote: >> >>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 12:01, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop >>> <mailop@mailop.org <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Still it is not clear, if Spamhaus doesn't answer, or of there is some >>> device in between. >> >> Worth a separate post as we see the potential for confusion here. >> >> On 30th September, in a Spamhaus posted blog: >> >> "A new range containing return codes (127.255.255.0/24) has been >> added to return possible errors related to the DNSBL queries >> themselves, which should NOT be interpreted as any sort of reputation >> related to the data being queried. While it will be quite uncommon >> for most Spamhaus users to encounter these codes, it is vitally >> important that software developers implement all return codes >> correctly, and NOT treat these error codes as any sort of reputation >> or "listed" values. The first two new error codes, and links to pages >> further explaining their meaning, are: >> >> >> Return CodeZoneDescription >> 127.255.255.254AnyQuery via public/open resolver >> 127.255.255.255AnyExcessive number of queries" >> >> Full article at >> <https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/788/spamhaus-dnsbl-return-codes-technical-update>. >> >> However, it is unlikely that these return codes will be used in anger >> for quite some time as the internet moves very sloooowwwwly at times. >> Especially when updating software and baked in practices are concerned. >> >> Simon >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mailop mailing list >> mailop@mailop.org >> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
