https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7995
--- Comment #14 from Henrik Krohns <apa...@hege.li> --- (In reply to Riccardo Alfieri from comment #13) > That is exactly what we are doing by normalizing addresses and shipping a > plugin that normalize the query on the lookup side. That's assuming SpamAssassin is used. Does something like rspamd support the same things? Maybe someone does custom queries with mimedefang or something. Even your plugin can get out of date, how do you make sure that people update it? Same problem with SA, some people still use 5 year old versions. > You can't really expect > that for each gmail.com address we list we also create hashes for every > possible variation of that same address :) Why wouldn't I expect? Having a million or two million hashes should make no meaningful difference to rbldnsd resource usage, or whatever you use to serve the lists. > The final goal is to list bad addresses. Since we know that gmail strips all > the dots and it has also the domain googlemail.com aliased, the hashes for > gmail addresses are created *after* the normalization. We do store the > "original" address that triggered the listing along with other data but only > for intel purposes. As you have the original list, it's trivial to create the additional hashes. Can you clarify what actual disadvantages this would have? > I think it's SpamAssassin that needs to take care of these edge cases, not > list mantainers. I'm still entertaining the "alias" function, when I can figure out a logical name and implementation for it. It will also have same problem of getting out of date, if your users don't update things. Granted, it's likely not a real-world issue if gmail is the only thing requiring it. > And just to be clear, this is not a criticism but only a constructive > suggestion from a list mantainer. Not taking it as criticism (not that it would make any difference to me), and I'm trying to give nothing but constructive suggestions back, as we all should. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
