On 10/19/2009 01:40 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Warren, since you don't even intend to include these BLs in stock SA, as
you mentioned in a follow-up...
Please do not use the mass-check contributors for your or the BL's
personal statistics, without even asking the contributors. They are a
precious resource.
The mass-checks are there to evaluate SA rule's performance. They are
not free for personal interest. If you want some stats for yourself,
please run it on your systems. Don't expect everyone else to do it for
you.
I must qualify that my intent was never to test anything purely from
personal interest or to use everyone else's systems to test rules that
may never benefit spamassassin in the future. I am insulted if this is
the insinuation.
Various BL's I am testing are assessing future suitability for SA. But
as noted earlier I am not rushing this, and I certainly do not have
illusions that we should add as many blacklists as possible. Currently
all of those BL's are incapable of the load capacity to become
production rules. They are also exhibiting FP problems, which
masschecks are helping to identify and fix their methodologies. It took
several weeks of masschecks to identify PSBL's trap logic bugs. Finally
even if they manage to become safer to FP's and with sufficient capacity
to handle spamassasin, we may still decide it is a bad idea to go
production because they are redundant by overlap analysis.
It seems the main cause for concern was notification before net rule
changes. I will do so in the future.
Warren
