On 6/27/2011 11:15 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Yes, it is incorrect behavior because while it isn't adding anything of
significance to the score it is still querying my public servers. I
don't think asking people to put another set of rules in to disable
rules that never should have been pushed is acceptable.
This is the second time it has happened (that I know of) without any
warning, notice or QA on the rulesets. As a SA user I find this
disturbing. As a blacklist operator I find this abusive. Please tell
me that it will be addressed in some way other than telling people to
just disable the rules.
Blaine,
I certainly see your point of view. Warren, how did ticket 6220 get open
to begin with? Did someone from SEM request us to test the RBL?
Daryl, these test rules are in the r1104058.
If we make it so test rules don't get into the sa-update file, that
won't break masscheck, will it? Masscheck is done with trunk, yes?
I'll disable the cf file in the sandbox and this should get fixed on the
next update.
Regards,
KAM
Kevin,
We were testing SEM in weekly masscheck for 2+ years now, which has been
entirely fine.
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/03/sem-rules-mistakenly-enabled-how-to.html
Unfortunately, something else changed in our codebase that mistakenly
auto-promoted the SEM rules to active back in March.
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/06/emergency-sem-rules-mistaken-enabled.html
And now it is back again, except as T_ rules, which is just as bad
because it is causing an unexpected flood of DNS traffic to SEM.
We need an emergency rule update to stop this flood, then to investigate
why our auto-rule promotion code is still broken.
Warren
