On 11/29/2011 1:34 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 11/28/2011 1:55 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
If there are better blocklists that are not used by spamassassin, please
open a bug to have it evaluated. Even if the data is not freely available,
it would be useful to list on the spamassassin wiki.
Darxus,
I'd love to have the invaluement blacklists included in such
evaluations. However, we are about to implement our largest
hardware/software upgrades ever. So it would be ideal to start such
inclusion in January, after the upgrades are completed and associated
bugs are fixed. (we're moving to 64-bit hardware and, where possible,
64-bit software!)
I had thought that, at some point in the past, I was told that only
freely available DNSBLs would be included in such testing? But if I'm
wrong or that has since changed, I'd welcome the opportunity to participate.
You are likely correct you were told that. However, speaking on behalf
of the project, the mess of differing licenses and limits for RBLs and
related projects has been very difficult to define a one-size fits all
answer to the question of testing.
What we want to avoid is becoming a advertising for a company or leading
administrators to use a product that isn't free.
So please open a bug about the testing and we can discuss it there.
RBLs for mass-check testing have to be approved and added in a way that
ensures they aren't published. I can't say we will approve it for
testing, etc. but as mentioned, we don't mind the documentation and it
creates a good record in case you decide to change your licensing (or
whatever) might be a hangup.
After that, whether the rules are included by default and or enabled by
default is another debate that has to do with licensing, etc.
Hope this helps clarify things.
Regards,
KAM
