https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #24 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2011-12-12 19:47:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #22) > "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. Sorry, I'm trying to close languishing tickets. Feel free to reopen especially if there is any data to support opening the ticket, wonderful. But right now, I think there are a lot of strikes against SEM being implemented and no reason to keep this open. Of course, I also take primordial joy in closing tickets. Sort of the same joy I get in balancing my check book monthly. Don't take away my joy ;-) > a) Does SA properly handle the "refused" return code from DNS resolvers? No, because that refused code is non-standard. I guess if the RBLs want to help us implement the code AND we implement it AND we wait until the old versions are EOL, then we could implement RBLs. > Should we care that other software does not, even if SA correctly handles it? Yes, we should care because it can't be standardized easily. It's a problem that doesn't have a good fix because of the use of DNS as a distributed network. > 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? No, because many places just deal with RBLs as yes/no and don't care what net block they belong to nor do they pay attention to bitwise answers. Some RBLs run combined and non-combined lists because of this. And for the record, I agree with Warren on keeping it in masscheck for virtually identical reasons. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
