On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:40 -0700, John Rudd wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 21:11, Bill Landry<b...@inetmsg.com> wrote: > > Jake Maul wrote: > >> Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using > >> Botnet on this server for several months without issue. > >> > >> Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :)
The patch was originally developed when SpamAssassin's resolver library was patched to shorten the timeouts. I suggested the changes to mimic the SpamAssassin code. > > Even though Mark Martinec had provided John Rudd with a nice, neat patch > > for botnet.pm well over a year ago to resolve this issue, John has not > > opted to take the 5 minutes that is necessary to fix botnet by applying > > the patch. He is no longer maintaining botnet, and it has become an > > orphaned plugin that is in serious need of repair. If you feel that way about it, fork it. I personally don't feel that way about John's work. > > That's a rather presumptuous statement to make. > > The plug-in works in the vast majority of cases, and I've had higher > priority things to work on. But the plug-in has not been abandoned (no > are you qualified to make that statement), nor is it in _serious_ need > of repair. > > Nor do you know how much pre-release work (testing, etc.) I put into a > release, whether or not that's the solution to the specific problem I > want to go with, etc., Correct. A more elegant solution would be to use the parallelizing resolver library built into SpamAssassin, but that would increase the complexity significantly, and take a lot more time to get right. I know I don't have the time to do that sort of development properly, and I fully sympathize with John's priorities. -- Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX www.austinenergy.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
