https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6668
--- Comment #33 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2011-12-13 00:08:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #32) > Just to add my 2c.... > > KAM: This was discussed before with regards to URIBL doing the same stuff, > see > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6048 > > URIBL still has the ability to return 127.0.0.255 for all queries as per their > 'abuse' page. See http://uribl.com/about.shtml#abuse and were returning > positive for queries from Google DNS about 3-4 weeks ago (AXB can probably > confirm this). > > Personally I think it would be a shame to loose either list from the default > rulesets despite these practices. It's good to mention this because we need to implement it the same for URIBL. My understanding back like 2 years ago was that URIBL changed to a block of the query and not to return false positives. I can tell you that I have nothing on my public NS for URIBL that gives out FP answers. I do have the rbldnsd ACL implemented which I believe does interfere but only in a blocking/pretend there is no data way. Blocking/pretending no data for queries is considered acceptable, I believe. AXB, can you confirm otherwise? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
