https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6102
--- Comment #2 from Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> 2009-04-26 14:10:57 PST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Well, yes it does, by definition actually. :) Right... > util_rb_2tld says that, in your example, "hostevo.com" is a TLD and not a > domain. So it's not that there's an implication that "hostevo.com" should not > be queried, in as much as "hostevo.com" is specified to be a TLD and so > therefore not something that is checked via URIBLs. > > We have (essentially) "util_rb_2tld co.uk", should we start checking "co.uk" ? Of course not. Though... See the "side-effect" I mentioned and the second part of the original report. > > Open issue: What about *real* second level domains? The Registrar Boundary > > code > > originally was meant to add new ones. RBL listings are just a very fortunate > > side-effect. > > What about it? Real ones should be added to the code. The config option is > there as a) a patch to push out a config until new code is released, and b) to > handle not-real-but-act-like-real ones. Hence my note about the fortunate side-effect. Fact is, there are already more than 100 abused free sub-domain hosters, and the common use-case is to (ab)use the option for some URIBL_BLACK love. How often has it been used in the original, intended way of dynamically adding new, real second-level domains? Please note that I questioned my own bug-report, after thinking some more about it. Oh, and tried to shift the flame-war over to the dev list. ;) However, the current use-case in the wild remains. As does the fact that two of our most credible RBLs disagree in a way I don't recall ever seeing before. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
