http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4290
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-30 17:41 ------- > See Sidney's comment #10. The answer is 'yes' With further analysis the answer is "not quite". I was fooled by the fact that behavior is dependent on timing and my firsts tests seemed to work. If both or neither have the "." then if the second query is done while the first is still pending, the code treats the second query as a duplicate and never sends it. The first query is associated only with the rule that requested it, so the second rule never matches. There is no provision in the code for two DNSRBL rules to use the same query. If we do want to be able to do that, then we have some coding to do in addition to canonicalizing the host name either when reading the cf file or in the hash key used for identifying duplicates. If I remember correctly, what we do now is generate the background query and save an entry for it on a pending list, where the entry identifies the query and the rule that is requesting it. When the reply arrives, we find the entry for it and process the rule. When the second query is requested nothing is done if it is requesting duplicate information. Instead we could still add an entry to the pending list that is the same as the one that is already there, except referring to the second rule. When a reply packet is read, it would be processed against all the matching entries for it on the pending list. I don't have time to code this for at least the next 24 hours unless I get some homework done remarkably early, but if nobody has got to yet when I have time I will. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
