https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6525
--- Comment #20 from Warren Togami <[email protected]> 2010-12-29 13:45:20 UTC --- > It's up to the user to remove redundant or really bad performing rules, > depending on the local mail flow. If we went this route, half of the SA rule > base which overlapped and had little hits (on the mass checks mind you) would > be disabled by default, leaving the user guessing what should be manually Where do we draw the line of acceptability? It is already 1% weak. Would 0.5% or 0% be obviously bad enough to warrant removal? What does this say about the level of acceptability of adding new DNSBL's? > enabled. Same goes for the proposed removing of dnswl by default.. Who proposed this? I didn't. > You have nothing but -1 from committers, and lots of reasons why not to remove > it. Perhaps you should move to some more worthwile cause. All the committers are against this, while on users@ not a single person there is in favor of keeping it after shown the raw numbers. Is the real issue here reluctance to change something of this nature outside of a major release? If that is the real issue then I can understand given that this is only temporary. Would committers in general be more open to consider removal of these two network queries at the next rescore masscheck? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
