https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #22 from D. Stussy <[email protected]> 2011-12-12 19:29:43 UTC --- "Can be closed" doesn't necessarily mean "should be closed." 1) The "anti-abuse DNS FP" issue should really be settled first. This favors keeping the issue open. a) Does SA properly handle the "refused" return code from DNS resolvers? Should we care that other software does not, even if SA correctly handles it? b) Is there a consensus that if a value were to be returned for "no answer due to abuse," it should be outside of 127.0.0.0/8? 2) Poor response quality does favor closing the issue. 3) Bad administration practice does favor closing the issue. Despite #2 and #3, I really suggest that #1 above needs to be addressed before formally closing this issue. If all concerned do in fact decide #1b should happen (even if done under a different issue # - e.g. 6668), then we have a noncompliant DNS list and we can put the matter to death permanently. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
