https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #20 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2011-12-12 19:14:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > (In reply to comment #17) > > > DNSWL was just disabled by default due to returning known wrong answers > > > to in > > > abuse situations (bug 6668). Should this bug be closed as evaluated and > > > deemed > > > inappropriate for the same reason? Should the handling of the 127.0.0.255 > > > value be changed to not cause false positives? > > > > I would agree. > > > > Until there is some RBL consensus on a "disabled" answer && code in SA to > > deal > > with it && it doesn't break the currently supported versions, there is no > > way > > an RBL that purposefully causes FPs due to overusage can be considered for > > default enabling. > > > > Again, my understanding is that this is a good RBL that has promise and > > should > > be considered by Admins, though. > > Huh!? Did something change significantly? > > http://www.spamtips.org/2011/05/dnsbl-safety-report-5142011.html > http://www.spamtips.org/2011/01/dnsbl-safety-report-182011.html > http://www.spamtips.org/2011/01/dnsbl-safety-report-122011.html > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > > SEMBLACK has a long history of inconsistent behavior. It often has been > measured to have a poor safety rating. It usually has unacceptably high > overlap. Once I caught him outright copying other DNSBL's into his own. More > recently it behaved as a less safe subset of one of our other DNSBL's. For > these reasons I strongly advice folks to avoid using SEMBLACK. Nothing changed, just wasn't sure where we currently stood on SEM. I think I mixed it up with Mailspike in my head. OK, so this ticket can be closed as not being considered for inclusion due to anti-abuse DNS FPs coupled with poor safety and questions of admin conduct. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
