https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6668
--- Comment #4 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2011-10-03 18:24:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > I would personally veto this immediately. We are not an advertising service > > for RBLs. > > I find that statement kind of interesting, when shutting off network tests, > many of which require payment over some threshold (often around 100,000 hits a > day), makes SpamAssassin five times less accurate. IMO, ANY provider that gives FALSE positives under any circumstances should not be configured to be enabled by default with SA. I have zero problem with them stopping their replies and zero problems with them charging for heavy usage. > I'm not happy about it, but SA seems pretty dependent on things like RBLs > which, under some circumstances, charge money. RBLs have a good place in anti-spam work. However, the concept that SA can be deployed out of the box with zero config and work well is likely unattainable due to the commercial realities of the world. > According to Michael Scheidell, Spamhaus's (providers of ZEN, SBL, PBL, XBL, > included in SA by default) policy of blocking queries results in "10 and 20 > min > delays in inbound email" - bug #6220. You could call that DOSing email > providers, instead of disabling spam filtration, both with the same goal of > getting the provider to disable the relevant network tests. Which is worse? False positives are worse from an anti-Spam perspective. > Should the Spamhaus rules be removed from the default SA rule set because they > will DOS email providers for querying them for over 100,000 emails per day? I don't consider a delay a DoS. It's not keeping the sendmail/spamc process grinding for 10-20 minutes is it? It's just causing the mail to await for a second delivery. That's "normal" for email as it is not an method of IM. The method to reduce the delay is simple: disable the RBL tests or pay for the RBL providers services, etc. > SEM (bug #6220) is the only one I know of that affects scores. And by a > mechanism that seemed to have the approval of SpamAssassin folks. Should that > bug be closed, and the rules not included in SA by default, because of that > mechanism? IMO, the mechanism should be changed to point to a URL controller by SA. > I think it would be great if SpamAssassin, by default, didn't include any > network rules that have limits on free use. Although it would probably > require > more work to improve the accuracy, which I don't really see happening. That's unrealistic as there are great services that have reasonable thresholds for use. Regards, KAM -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
