https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6525
--- Comment #33 from D. Stussy <[email protected]> 2011-08-11 18:31:39 UTC --- RE: Reply #32. I looked at what the DNSBL said and attempted removal for you as well. The system told me you were only listed last week (04 Aug 2011) and that automatic removal requests were denied. I did find it puzzling that the alleged evidence is a "mailbox full DSN" (over quota), not a virus infection. However, per your story, the listing reason you gave is valid. As for your [manual] delisting request and apparent non-response, I note that since this will require manual intervention by a real person, perhaps not enough time has passed for such to be reviewed and happen. Also, as some mail servers queue messages for up to 2 weeks (15 days), there still could be virus messages originating from your server floating around the Internet. Therefore, de-listing could be premature. cf. http://dnsbl.njabl.org/cgi-bin/lookup.cgi?query=64.18.62.36 >From the point of view of adminstering SA, what matters is how many [correct] hits this DNSBL has which are not covered by other DNSBLs. Although your complant about an apparent lack of maintenance regarding the list may have merit, it is merely one consideration. However, a single instance isn't enough; we'd need a pattern of no maintenance or a pattern of false results. The fact that you were [automatically] added for a correct reason (even thought the "evidence" is wrong) tells us that the NJABL is not completely dead. Therefore, let's keep this "bug" as "resolved/later" and therefore closed. Should there be a periodic (annual?) review of all DNSBLs used by SA, based on masscheck results, looking specifically at hit rates where a single DNSBL hits? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
