http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4760
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-03-08 20:57 -------
is trust_path.t necessary because of this:
# TODO: 3.1.x does not support redefining the ruleset, which this
# test requires; therefore disable it.
#
#use Test; BEGIN { plan tests => 24 };
use Test; BEGIN { plan tests => 0 }; exit;
why bother including it if it's always going to exit?
also, the warn that the lint check puts out should be ended with a newline, or
else you get:
[2700] warn: trusted_networks doesn't contain internal_networks entry
'65.214.43.12' at /home/
felicity/SA/spamassassin-3.1/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf/Parser.pm line 786.
otherwise, everytime I try thinking about internal vs trusted_networks
settings, my brain starts to hurt.
why can't we make this simpler? something like:
internal_networks == all of your IPs, assumed to never send you spam (but could
relay)
trusted_networks == IPs who you trust to not send you spam (but could relay)
therefore, trusted_networks should always include internal_networks, and I
don't see why an entry in
internal_networks could just directly be put into trusted_networks. I'm not
opposed to the proposed
"flag an error when both are specified and trusted doesn't include internal"
idea, though it seems like
extra effort to have to list things twice.
Honestly, I'm still not sure the internal/external difference is useful --
either the mail is delivered from/
through only trusted sources, or at some point an untrusted source delivers the
mail directly or to a
trusted relay. The first is ALL_TRUSTED and we don't need to look anything up,
and the second gives
you a demarkation point... Do we ever want to lookup if a host we consider
trusted is on a RBL? If so,
why? Shouldn't we always use nothing (which seems to be a num_check_received
limited version of -
untrusted), -firsttrusted or -untrusted ? Right now we use nothing,
-firsttrusted, and -lastexternal.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
