https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6400
--- Comment #22 from Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> 2011-12-02 00:55:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) > Thanks for the references. They happened before I subscribed to the dev > list. > There was *no* objection to adding tested DNSBLs to existing releases. Again, I believe there was consensus about generally adding new DNSBLs with major/minor version updates only, *and* clearly communicating this in the release announcement -- something that doesn't even exist with daily rule updates. There likely have been more than these two threads and discussions about it. That's two years ago, and I was happy to find these references at all in my archive. (See below, one of the referenced nabble archives are horribly incomplete and don't reflect the thread in my archive with the same Subject at all.) > And this is where you first claimed there had previously been a relevant > objection: > > Karsten Bräckelmann-2, Oct 19, 2009 > > A micro 3.3.x release probably is not the best opportunity, though. I > > recall there has been quite some discussion and resentment last time. > > Even when including new BLs for 3.4, we really need to communicate that > > added network load better to the user-base. Oh, a two year old reference by me this has been discussed before? Should I have dug even deeper through my archive? Sorry, ain't gonna happen. (And FWIW, that post by me was the other thread, Dec 23, 2010, not the early one 2009. Which in the nabble archive even is broken and lacks an important part of the full thread.) So, you've not even been subscribed to dev@ at that point. OK, no problem. I have, and I have been involved in discussions about WHEN and HOW to introduce new DNSBLs. Maybe you just trust my memory on that? Hey, I welcome anyone to step up and tell me consensus has been otherwise. > "MSPIKE (previously named ANBREP) has proven consistently in weekly masschecks > since before the release of 3.3.0" - Warren. So MSPIKE has been good since > before 2010-01-27. Two years. And from what I can tell, for at least a year, > it hasn't been added to the default rule set because of your unsubstantiated > claim that somebody else objected. I do not question the Mailspike DNSBL in any way. Quite the contrary. However, good performance is irrelevant to the point of when and how to add it. What's unsubstantiated is your claim that I and my quote would have been the reason for not yet including Mailspike. There are NO votes by PMC members or committers. That's what matters and changes the game, not a single post on a mailing list. > Can you start over and tell me why you don't think MSPIKE should be added to > existing 3.3 releases? I don't think anybody will mind the increased network > load. I think everyone will appreciate the resulting increased accuracy. While you "don't think anybody will mind the increased network load", I do know it for a fact. Yes, there *are* systems out there, heavily tweaked for throughput with assorted DNSBLs, plugins and rules disabled. Thus the need for clearly communicating any such changes. > Somewhat related, spamassassin needs an announcement list, for announcing > changes like this, and releases. (bug 6714) Oh, yeah, *that* was a fun bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
