I've been using HashBL for eons so if Gio wants to consider whether his BTC RBL can handle the load, I'm +1 for enabling it by default. -- Kevin A. McGrail Member, Apache Software Foundation Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 9:09 AM Henrik K <h...@hege.li> wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:48:13AM -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > > On 2022-05-25 at 23:59:36 UTC-0400 (Thu, 26 May 2022 06:59:36 +0300) > > Henrik K <h...@hege.li> > > is rumored to have said: > > > > > Any objections enabling HashBL plugin by default for new installs? > > > > > > I think it's going to be useful in the future with all the new > features. > > > Only rule in stock rules using it at the moment is GB_HASHBL_BTC, but > > > there > > > will probably be more and we should make sure it can be easily used if > > > needed. > > > > I am mildly concerned that Gio may not be ready to have his future > married > > to the operation of a public blacklist enabled by default in SA. Once it > is > > switched on by default, it will be difficult to end or even substantially > > change in operation. We've handled DNSBLs dying well in the past on the > > project side, but it is also tough on the operator of a DNSBL. > > I don't see how that's much relevance to if HashBL plugin should be enabled > by default. It's much harder to make people enable the plugin later when > it > could have some acute usage for example with Spamhaus. It's not like the > 4.0.0 release automatically enables it on old upgraded installs anyway, but > we should enable it now for the future. > >
