Michael Scheidell schrieb:
Wasn't there a standard at one time, return something different (test) if
you queries 2.0.0.127.{dnsblacklist}? If it returned (at least) '127.0.0.2'
and a list of other valid bitflags. that meant that the dnsbl was up and
running? Anything else and it wasn't?
See
Michael Scheidell wrote:
...and I bet there are still commercial anti-spam products using
dsbl.org because they haven't figured it out either :-)
Wasn't there a standard at one time, return something different (test) if
you queries 2.0.0.127.{dnsblacklist}?
There's a draft or two that
Jason Haar writes:
McDonald, Dan wrote:
No, it boils down to the attitude in your e-mail - Why didn't the
SpamAssassin benefactors do their job better. I for one am impressed
with their willingness to provide such a useful piece of software, and
maintain it. But most of them have real
Todd Adamson a écrit :
If dsbl has been down for awhile, since around June, why hasn't it
been removed from the configuration via sa-update before now? That's
one of the purposes of sa-update.
Querying their dns server is certainly a waste of time, but isn't really
a critical issue. At the
Hi!
So what is your point Raymond?
That we are end users should find out every external subsystem call and
document it and search for and get on lists that may or may not exist let
alone email us if their baby fails and bites the dust?
You expect the same from the other people on this dont
...and I bet there are still commercial anti-spam products using
dsbl.org because they haven't figured it out either :-)
Wasn't there a standard at one time, return something different (test) if
you queries 2.0.0.127.{dnsblacklist}? If it returned (at least) '127.0.0.2'
and a list of other
You expect the same from the other people on this dont you? This issue was
handled like explained in a normal way. The list was frozen and was
expected to return. Now that its known to turn out otherwise its removed.
And within a day promoted on SA update.
I still see it listed inside
dsbl has been down for a long long time now
Any more DNS checks is just waste of time
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 11:41 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Todd Adamson wrote:
Would I be correct or incorrect that this will get updated
to our rules through sa-update. If this does get corrected,
what
down for good
On 25/09/2008 11:34 AM, Todd Adamson wrote:
Would I be correct or incorrect that this will get updated to our
rules through sa-update. If this does get corrected, what kind of
time frame are we guessing at?
Updates are currently being distributed to the mirrors. DNS
Randal, Phil wrote:
Updates are still at version 694708 for 3.2.5.
Cheers,
Phil
Looks like something has gone awry then as I successfully updated this
morning (to 699147, see below), but as you say it's now reporting
version 694708:
[4349] dbg: channel: attempting channel
If dsbl has been down for awhile, since around June, why
hasn't it been removed from the configuration via sa-update
before now? That's one of the purposes of sa-update.
Todd
ram wrote:
dsbl has been down for a long long time now
Any more DNS checks is just waste of time
On Thu,
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 09:38 -0500, Todd Adamson wrote:
If dsbl has been down for awhile, since around June, why
hasn't it been removed from the configuration via sa-update
before now? That's one of the purposes of sa-update.
Because nobody complained about it and opened a bug.
It was
Hi!
If dsbl has been down for awhile, since around June, why hasn't it been
removed from the configuration via sa-update before now? That's one of the
purposes of sa-update.
Yeah ... i would file a complaint with your local sales droid. ;)
I guess since nobody bothered to open a ticket
So, it basically boils down to my lack of knowledge that
dsbl died back in June, and was used from within
spamassassin. I'll admit it. I didn't know about it. My fault.
Todd
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
If dsbl has been down for awhile, since around June, why hasn't it
been removed from
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 10:44 -0500, Todd Adamson wrote:
So, it basically boils down to my lack of knowledge that
dsbl died back in June, and was used from within
spamassassin. I'll admit it. I didn't know about it. My fault.
No, it boils down to the attitude in your e-mail - Why didn't the
No, it boils down to the attitude in your e-mail - Why didn't the
SpamAssassin benefactors do their job better. I for one am impressed
with their willingness to provide such a useful piece of software, and
maintain it. But most of them have real jobs, and don't spend every
waking moment
Hi!
When people design and build a system(s) of any type, there should be checks
and balances designed in that can check and see if sub parts of the systems
(or called by the system(s)) are broken or disappeared or what have you so
that allowances / changes can be made in a quicker, more
Visionary people can read messages, many RBL servers have announce lists.
So go ahead and report of file a bug whenever needed :-)
Bye,
Raymond.
So what is your point Raymond?
That we are end users should find out every external subsystem call and
document it and search for and get on
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 10:35 -0700, RobertH wrote:
No, it boils down to the attitude in your e-mail - Why didn't the
SpamAssassin benefactors do their job better. I for one am impressed
with their willingness to provide such a useful piece of software, and
maintain it. But most of
They run a bunch of tests every night, and are notified by nagios if the
tests fail. lurk on the -dev mail list every now and again and you'll
see it.
--
Daniel J McDonald,
Thanks Dan
I know some and figured some of the rest.
Yeah, I went to the dsbl website some time back and
McDonald, Dan wrote:
No, it boils down to the attitude in your e-mail - Why didn't the
SpamAssassin benefactors do their job better. I for one am impressed
with their willingness to provide such a useful piece of software, and
maintain it. But most of them have real jobs, and don't spend
On 26/09/2008 2:03 PM, McDonald, Dan wrote:
someone noticed and mentioned it on the user list. another person saw
that and filed a bug. Then one of the developers made the change,
pushed out the update, and closed the bug. I don't see that there is
any crisis here that needs to be solved.
On 26/09/2008 11:44 AM, Todd Adamson wrote:
So, it basically boils down to my lack of knowledge that dsbl died back
in June, and was used from within spamassassin. I'll admit it. I didn't
know about it. My fault.
No problem. We didn't know either. It wasn't causing any problems so
there's
Would I be correct or incorrect that this will get updated
to our rules through sa-update. If this does get corrected,
what kind of time frame are we guessing at? And in the
short term, if we zero the score for RCVD_IN_DSBL, will that
properly disable the test?
Todd
Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Todd Adamson wrote:
Would I be correct or incorrect that this will get updated to our rules
through sa-update. If this does get corrected, what kind of time frame
are we guessing at? And in the short term, if we zero the score for
RCVD_IN_DSBL, will that properly disable the test?
I have
Todd Adamson wrote:
Would I be correct or incorrect that this will get updated
to our rules through sa-update. If this does get corrected,
what kind of time frame are we guessing at?
No idea here.
And in the short term, if we zero the score for RCVD_IN_DSBL, will
that properly disable
On 25/09/2008 11:34 AM, Todd Adamson wrote:
Would I be correct or incorrect that this will get updated to our rules
through sa-update. If this does get corrected, what kind of time frame
are we guessing at?
Updates are currently being distributed to the mirrors. DNS will update
in a few
I just saw this mentioned on the Qmail list, and as I can still see
dsbl.org rules throughout SA, I thought others probably want to know
DSBL is GONE and highly unlikely to return. Please remove it from your
mail server configuration
http://www.dsbl.org/
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information
Thanks Jason! I've opened bug 5988.
Regards,
Daryl
29 matches
Mail list logo
