https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6550
--- Comment #13 from Warren Togami <[email protected]> 2011-06-09 22:05:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > What does voting and 3.3.2 have to do with a test rule for masschecks? > > trunk > > is masschecks. No voting is required. The general consensus we agreed on > > maybe a year or two is "plenty of advance warning and no complaints" to add > > new > > network rules to the weekly masscheck. > > So commit it? Not yet. See below. (In reply to comment #6) > > And Warren, the way urirhssub works, this won't cause an additional DNS > query: Take a look at rules/25_uribl.cf where the existing URIBL_DBL_* rules live. It appears that URIBL_DBL_* should have the "reuse" flag like the other production URIBL rules. I normally wouldn't suggest this, but given that this is another return code for an existing network query, we might be better off immediately putting it into production alongside the other URIBL_DBL_* rules with an informational score, then make it "reuse" so it does not differ from the other rules and trigger extra DNS lookups during masscheck. I believe this is a better way of more accurately testing the performance of URIBL_DBL_REDIR and the existing DBL return codes, because we are better off knowing its performance AT THE TIME OF MAIL DELIVERY rather than weeks/months later. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
