On 11/05/2024 03:40, Bill Cole wrote:
So what? domain owners state hard fail it SHOULD be hard failed,
irrespective of if YOU think you know better than THEM or not, if we
hardfail we accept the risks that come with it.
In practice, there is a prioritizing of whose wishes I prioritize on
On 2024-05-09 at 17:21:07 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 07:21:07 +1000)
Noel Butler
is rumored to have said:
> So what? domain owners state hard fail it SHOULD be hard failed, irrespective
> of if YOU think you know better than THEM or not, if we hardfail we accept
> the risks that come with it.
On 09/05/2024 22:47, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2024-05-09 at 08:37:06 UTC-0400 (Thu, 09 May 2024 14:37:06 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory
On 2024-05-09 at 08:37:06 UTC-0400 (Thu, 09 May 2024 14:37:06 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory that a SPF failure is always a sign
Bill Cole skrev den 2024-05-09 14:22:
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you operate on the theory that a SPF failure is always a sign of
spam, you can make your SpamAssassin always trust SPF failures
absolutely. I would not recommend that. Some
You
are free to use the priority and shortcircuiting features to assure that
SPF_FAIL causes DNSWL checks to not be run. I would not expect any of
these to have an overall positive effect on your email.
In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF
fails.
If you o
of any whitelist test that should pass
if SPF fails. I could attach a higher score to SPF_FAIL, but that
would unduly affect cases where the sender wasn't white listed.
I need a way to force Spammassassin to negate the effect of one test
on the passing of another.
https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id
On 09/05/2024 05:57, Jarland Donnell wrote:
That's easy though at least. Set the DNSWL rule to 0. I appreciate
their effort but it's simply not an accurate way to determine the value
of an email in 2024. It's never been the deciding factor between
whether or not an email was spam, in any
DNSWL_HI In DNS whitelist, good SPF
- Original Message -
I received a (relatively) well crafted Phishing email today. It was clearly
a well planned campaign. The Spamassassin score was as follows:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=GOOG_REDIR_NORD
gt;
> DNS white-hole list checks should never ever pass if the SPF checks fail. In
> fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF fails. I
> could attach a higher score to SPF_FAIL, but that would unduly affect cases
> where the sender wasn't white listed.
>
=0.001,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5,RDNS_NONE=1.274,
SPF_FAIL=0.919,SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001,WIKI_IMG=2.397
autolearn=disabled version=3.4.6
DNS white-hole list checks should never ever pass if the SPF checks
fail. In fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass
gt;> -> , Queue-ID: 4VBDq04Bn7z1Q9qQ, mail_id:
>>> 6LRhEwtUmP7u, Hits: -, size: 10888, queued_as: 4VBDq06n69z1Q9q1,
>>> 358 ms
>>>
>>> I check and I not found any <> in whitelist
> I check and nothging check whitelist in sq
82 [34.23.17.0] <>
>>> -> , Queue-ID: 4VBDq04Bn7z1Q9qQ, mail_id:
>>> 6LRhEwtUmP7u, Hits: -, size: 10888, queued_as: 4VBDq06n69z1Q9q1,
>>> 358 ms
>>>
>>> I check and I not found any <> in whitelist
> I check and nothging
;
> >>>
> >>> Apr 6 01:15:09 amavis3 amavis[3887068]: (3887068-17) Passed
> >>> BAD-HEADER-7 {RelayedInbound}, [34.23.17.0]:38582 [34.23.17.0] <>
> >>> -> , Queue-ID: 4VBDq04Bn7z1Q9qQ, mail_id:
> >>> 6LRhEwtUmP7u, Hits: -,
ze: 10888, queued_as: 4VBDq06n69z1Q9q1,
358 ms
I check and I not found any <> in whitelist
I check and nothging check whitelist in sql and nothing abou
whitelisted sender <>
check amavis config.
read books :)
yes read read byt this is not from bounce. Normal bounce not have info
in log l
eck and I not found any <> in whitelist
I check and nothging check whitelist in sql and nothing abou
whitelisted sender <>
check amavis config.
read books :)
<> is bounce addresse with must not be rejected
hence its whitelisted
0fcd95c5445df29e8a5cc
Apr 6 01:15:08 amavis3 amavis[3887068]: (3887068-17) check_header:
7, Missing required header field: "Date"
Apr 6 01:15:08 amavis3 amavis[3887068]: (3887068-17) wbl:
whitelisted sender <>,
this looks like whitelist at amavis level, not at spamassassin level
vis[3887068]: (3887068-17) check_header: 7,
Missing required header field: "Date"
Apr 6 01:15:08 amavis3 amavis[3887068]: (3887068-17) wbl: whitelisted
sender <>,
this looks like whitelist at amavis level, not at spamassassin level.
Apr 6 01:15:08 amavis3 amavis[3887068]: (3887068-17)
04Bn7z1Q9qQ, mail_id: 6LRhEwtUmP7u, Hits:
-, size: 10888, queued_as: 4VBDq06n69z1Q9q1, 358 ms
I check and I not found any <> in whitelist
--
Philip Prindeville via users skrev den 2024-03-28 18:55:
My config also has:
trusted_networks 192.168.6.0/24
trusted_networks 192.168.8.0/24
trusted_networks 127.0.0.1/32
So I don't think that's the problem.
rfc 1918 is imho hardcoded into spamassassin
if its this, make a bugzilla about
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 12:18 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
>>> On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 12:18 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
>>> On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
On Mar 28, 2024, at 2:39 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And
On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever seem to see the 2nd rule being hit, but not the first.
What is the order of evaluation?
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 2:39 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
>> I have something that looks like:
>>
>> whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
>>
>> blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
>>
>> And I only ever seem to see the 2nd
On 27.03.24 20:56, Philip Prindeville via users wrote:
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever seem to see the 2nd rule being hit, but not the first.
What is the order of
Hi.
I have something that looks like:
whitelist_from_rcvd v...@yandex.ru vger.kernel.org
blacklist_from *@yandex.ru
And I only ever seem to see the 2nd rule being hit, but not the first.
What is the order of evaluation? Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf doesn't say that I
On 23.12.22 21:24, Joey J wrote:
This is the best I can grab header wise, Names/IP's have changed here to
protect privacy.
Know the following:
The senders real server (1.2.3.4), (1.2.3.4 is the SPF match) sends the
mail to the gateway, and the gateway blocked it as shown.
Yes, legit going to
Hello All,
This is the best I can grab header wise, Names/IP's have changed here to
protect privacy.
Know the following:
The senders real server (1.2.3.4), (1.2.3.4 is the SPF match) sends the
mail to the gateway, and the gateway blocked it as shown.
Yes, legit going to paypal.
Based on your
*@netflix.com
blacklist_from *@netflix.com
whitelist_auth *@*.netflix.com
blacklist_from *@*.netflix.com
You may need to dial back the blacklist score a bit for it to work
reliably:
score USER_IN_BLACKLIST 85.000 # let whitelist override
On 21.12.22 15:48, Joey J wrote:
Thank you for pointing me in the better direction.
Since not many people are typing these types of email , I could do the one
off rule and it would be manageable.
But in better seeing the welcomelist_from_spf option, I think this will be
my first try.
Kris & Greg,
Thank you for pointing me in the better direction.
Since not many people are typing these types of email , I could do the one
off rule and it would be manageable.
But in better seeing the welcomelist_from_spf option, I think this will be
my first try.
I appreciate all of your points
Joey J wrote:
Thanks Everyone.
Within all of the responses, I will try to reply here.
1. The legit sender will talk about big numbers because of the real
things he is involved with so big numbers is still a valid method to
score, just not in this case.
2. The SPF record is set to fail on no
The other thing that should be done for j...@company.com is that
company.com should sign their mail with DKIM, and then you can
welcomelist_from_dkim *@company.com
I find that many companies I deal with that produce semi-spammy mail
(most big companies :-) have DKIM signatures and I can
Thanks Everyone.
Within all of the responses, I will try to reply here.
1. The legit sender will talk about big numbers because of the real things
he is involved with so big numbers is still a valid method to score, just
not in this case.
2. The SPF record is set to fail on no match, however this
On 2022-12-21 at 12:02:27 UTC-0500 (Wed, 21 Dec 2022 18:02:27 +0100)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas
is rumored to have said:
[...]>
> On 21.12.22 11:19, Henrik K wrote:
>> It will pass welcomelist_auth, since there is SPF_PASS, which you missed:
>>
>> SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF
or 3
times, there are more of the buzz words that SA looks at based on rules.
We can't whitelist j...@company.com because of course everyone
pretending to be him will more than likely get whitelisted and you
know the rest.
This is why I thought if user j...@company.com from ip 1.2.3.4
condition
> DKIM_INVALID 0.1 DKIM or DK signature exists, but is not valid
>
> DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
> necessarily valid
>
> HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST 0.001 HTML font color similar or identical to
> background
>
> HTML_MESSAGE0.001 HTML
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 08:43:18AM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > DKIM_INVALID 0.1 DKIM or DK signature exists, but is not valid
> >
> > DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
> > necessarily valid
> >
> > HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST 0.001 HTML
looks at based on rules.
We can't whitelist j...@company.com because of course everyone pretending to
be him will more than likely get whitelisted and you know the rest.
You have misunderstood that welcomelist_auth means.
It means that the sender has to pass SPF or DKIM, which means that random
Personally I'd look at why BIGNUM_EMAILS_MANY is hitting and see if there is
something the sender could do to avoid it. I'm pretty sure I've never seen that
rule hit in any of my spam, so it must be something a bit unique.
Loren
words that SA looks at based on rules.
We can't whitelist j...@company.com because of course everyone pretending to
be him will more than likely get whitelisted and you know the rest.
This is why I thought if user j...@company.com from ip 1.2.3.4 condition
would allow me to add some negative score
On 19.12.22 20:05, Joey J wrote:
I'm trying to see if there is a "best way" to provide negative scoring for
a certain persons email.
As an example if j...@company.com is communicating with paypal or other real
banking institutions, then at times within the email chain, SA will tag it
as spam.
all used 'whitelist' and
'blacklist' so if you are not running 3.4.6 or 4.0.0 those names will be
in the docs.
The scores for the various wl/bl settings are controlled by a set of
rules distributed and described in rules/60_welcomelist.cf. As Greg
indicated, welcomelist_from_rcvd causes a hit
Actually, what would be the format, in respect to header for that rule?
so
header welcomelist_from_rcvd j...@company.com [1.2.3.4]
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 8:39 PM Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Joey J writes:
>
> > I'm trying to see if there is a "best way" to provide negative scoring
> for
Thanks,
So welcomelist_from_rcvd j...@company.com [1.2.3.4]
Is saying if it's received from j...@company.com and the IP combination?
And then simply score it
welcomelist_from_rcvd score -2
I will try that thank you!
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 8:39 PM Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Joey J writes:
>
> >
Joey J writes:
> I'm trying to see if there is a "best way" to provide negative scoring for
> a certain persons email.
That's easy. There are many ways, but not best way.
> As an example if j...@company.com is communicating with paypal or other real
> banking institutions, then at times
Hello All,
I'm trying to see if there is a "best way" to provide negative scoring for
a certain persons email.
As an example if j...@company.com is communicating with paypal or other real
banking institutions, then at times within the email chain, SA will tag it
as spam.
I want to see if there
ving to add addresses to my whitelist file even for addresses that
> might not ever send another email in future.
>
> Relief...
Probably a good choice, as TxRep is currently quite broken in several
regards, see for example:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7943
a
Today I got my life back.
Decided to ditch TXrep and go back to AWL. It might not be as clever,
but at least it works!
The inability to do working manual changes to scores meant wasting a lot of
time having to add addresses to my whitelist file even for addresses that
might not ever send
On Thursday 16 December 2021 at 21:43:04, Peter wrote:
Thanks, I hadn't thought about that.
I am curious though, I normall hit Reply rather than Reply to All, and with
your email Reply just uses your own address,
that's because Anthony doesn't set Reply-To: and neither does this mailing
list
On Thursday 16 December 2021 at 21:43:04, Peter wrote:
> Thanks, I hadn't thought about that.
>
> I am curious though, I normall hit Reply rather than Reply to All, and with
> your email Reply just uses your own address,
That, I find strange.
For me, selecting my own reply on the list, and
Thanks, I hadn't thought about that.
I am curious though, I normall hit Reply rather than Reply to All, and with
your email Reply just uses your own address, I need to hit Reply to All to
get it on the list. Is that what has been happening with mine, and why
does it happen with replies to
On Thursday 16 December 2021 at 21:21:28, Peter wrote:
> I was thinking that replies would show up here.
> Perhaps I should create an account on a mail server without RBL blocking?
Either that, or (preferably) stop your email client from enforcing a Reply-To
address which is different from the
Hi Greg,
Yeah, my blocklists are pretty extreme, normally serves me well, but I
apologize to those trying to help. I was thinking that replies would show
up here.
I have just cleared 71.19.144.0/20 just in case so hopefully those replies
can come in.
Perhaps I should create an account on a
Hey Peter: Your mailserver appears to be a bit aggressive and is
blocking mail from people on the list who are replying to you:
: host acemail1.ace.net.au[150.101.236.36] said: 553 5.3.0
Rejected 71.19.148.97 by clients-b.blocked.rbl (in reply to MAIL FROM
command)
I just want the command to work as advertised. It worked for AWL on my
older system, made life a lot easier.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 16/12/2021 at 9:36 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
>"Peter" writes:
>
>> New to TXrep, the manual says the add-addr-to-whiteli
"Peter" writes:
> New to TXrep, the manual says the add-addr-to-whitelist command should add
> -100, but for me it doesn't do anything - nor does add-addr-to-blacklist.
>
> It comes back with SpamAssassin TxRep: 1 with either the white or
> blacklist.
>
>
Hi,
New to TXrep, the manual says the add-addr-to-whitelist command should add
-100, but for me it doesn't do anything - nor does add-addr-to-blacklist.
It comes back with SpamAssassin TxRep: 1 with either the white or
blacklist.
While the server is new, I want to be able to adjust a senders
On 20201017 10:58:13, RW wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 23:18:16 -0400
Bill Cole wrote:
On 16 Oct 2020, at 21:06, Noel Butler wrote:
perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
and versions <4 should have the original rules.
The rule name change is an artifact of how the
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 23:18:16 -0400
Bill Cole wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2020, at 21:06, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> > perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
> > and versions <4 should have the original rules.
>
> The rule name change is an artifact of how the rules are
>
That sums it up well for now, yes. 4.0 will even let you still use the
same config options so there is a timeline for planning for the removal
of the options with 4.1 whenever that is.
On 10/17/2020 11:10 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Thanks a lot to all who replied. So, for the uninitiated like
Bill Cole wrote:
>
> > perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
> > and versions <4 should have the original rules.
>
> The rule name change is an artifact of how the rules are version-controlled.
> We have exactly one version of the rules and it resides in the trunk of
On 16 Oct 2020, at 21:06, Noel Butler wrote:
perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
and versions <4 should have the original rules.
The rule name change is an artifact of how the rules are
version-controlled. We have exactly one version of the rules and it
resides
6 02:46:12.979 [11288] warn: lint: 1 issues detected, please rerun with
> debug enabled for more information
>
> Am I not supposed to replace whitelist with welcomelist in my configs?
On 16.10.20 09:20, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> No, not until 4.0 is released. Good question!
perhaps, the
On 10/16/2020 10:22 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 16.10.20 09:20, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> No, not until 4.0 is released. Good question!
>
> perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
> and versions <4 should have the original rules.
The rule just happens to have
mAssassin
complains:
$ spamassassin --lint
Oct 16 02:46:11.739 [11288] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
"/etc/spamassassin/local.cf": welcomelist_from *@
Oct 16 02:46:12.979 [11288] warn: lint: 1 issues detected, please rerun with
debug enabled for more information
Am I not
ssassin/local.cf": welcomelist_from *@
> Oct 16 02:46:12.979 [11288] warn: lint: 1 issues detected, please rerun with
> debug enabled for more information
>
> Am I not supposed to replace whitelist with welcomelist in my configs?
No, not until 4.0 is released. Good question!
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:48:20 +0700
Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> My SpamAssassin reports that
>
> -0.0 USER_IN_WELCOMELISTuser is listed in 'welcomelist_from'
> -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST
>
>
> However when I change "whitelist_from"
ease rerun with
debug enabled for more information
Am I not supposed to replace whitelist with welcomelist in my configs?
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
I stand by the name. People
should stop using the language.
As you cannot fail to be aware if you read even a fraction of the list
messages on this topic, there is absolutely no consensus that
blacklist/whitelist etc. are racially charged terms. Some perceive them
as such, sure, but others
plugin does and
I
stand by the name. People should stop using the language.
As you cannot fail to be aware if you read even a fraction of the list
messages on this topic, there is absolutely no consensus that
blacklist/whitelist etc. are racially charged terms. Some perceive them
as such, su
>> You go shut your piehole
Ehhh, who exactly? Having a nice evening with a vodka bottle? ;)
You go shut your piehole
Woke white guys who know best about racism against blacks and who use a
domain name that insults native Americans have spoken!!!
Black people and people of color need to go sit down and shut up while
woke white guys who know best for them do what is best for
On 20/07/20 19:31, John Hardin wrote:
Apologies for not clarifying that detail; I was aware of it. I did
hedge by saying "(potentially) subject to renaming".
No apologies necessary, it wasn't directed to you :)
I'm just trying to raise awareness that, while changing things is
possible,
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
On 20/07/20 19:01, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one of my private
rules uses URIBL_BLACK as a subrule. I have no other potential conflicts
with SA rule name changes and no postprocessing that's dependent
On 20/07/20 19:01, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one of my private
rules uses URIBL_BLACK as a subrule. I have no other potential conflicts
with SA rule name changes and no postprocessing that's dependent on SA
rule names.
Here just to say that
On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 09:30 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> It would be helpful if we could be informed whether anyone has post-
> SA processing that looks for these rulenames in the SA hit results,
> e.g. for making message delivery decisions.
>
Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, Thom van der Boon wrote:
One example is that our IRS ("Belastingdienst") is whitelisted by the following
rule:
whitelist_from_spf *@belastingdienst.nl
That configuration syntax will continue to be supported for at least one
year after the release of SA 4.0 (i.e. it
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please
ah sorry i wrote that totally wrong...
i mean we have "whitelist_from" setting.
should i change that to "welcomelist_from" or to "welcome_from", because when changing from "whitelist" to
"welcomelist" should "welcomelist_from"
What is being used for mail that is not welcome, but still needs to be
allowed thru?
-Original Message-
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST
in process of being Renamed
can we use something like
can we use something like that or is there any special edit necessary?
sed -i 's/whitelist/welcomelist/g' $CONFIG
my setting "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from" || "welcome_from"?
Thanks
Am 19.07.20 um 18:09 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
All:
As of t
groet, Best regards,
Thom van der Boon
E-Mail: t...@vdb.nl
Van: "Kevin A. McGrail"
Aan: "Thom van der Boon"
Cc: "SA Mailing list" , "SpamAssassin Devel
List"
Verzonden: Zondag 19 juli 2020 19:56:34
Onderwerp: Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referenc
On 19 Jul 2020, at 21:23, Olivier wrote:
> Please consider adding an easy way to turn the backward compatibility on
> and off.
I would suggest to settings, one that warns the definition has changed and one
that errors on the old term rather than just a "turn on compatibility" which
will mean
On 20200719 18:02:18, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Loren Wilton wrote:
In other words, support both "black" and "block", and "white" and "welcome",
for at least 3 months, I suggest.
The bug report that introduced this change claimed 100% backward compatability
for at least one
Noel Butler skrev den 2020-07-20 05:35:
Just think of those 10's thousands of running spamassassin who are not
on these lists, all in for a shock when custom scripts start breaking.
lets hope rspamd being marked stable on gentoo before this shock happend
:=)
The bug report that introduced this change claimed 100% backward
compatability for at least one year, later changed to until 4.0 came out,
whenever that will be.
You're misreading that. Backwards compatibility in the code will be
maintained for at least one year after the 4.0 release,
Sorry
On 20/07/2020 13:23, Olivier wrote:
> "Kevin A. McGrail" writes:
>
>> All:
>>
>> As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
>> WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards compatibility.
>
> Kevin,
>
> Please consider adding an easy way to turn the backward
ulesets.
>
> If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
> references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
>
> In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
> will become welcomelist
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Loren Wilton wrote:
In other words, support both "black" and "block", and "white" and
"welcome", for at least 3 months, I suggest.
The bug report that introduced this change claimed 100% backward
compatability for at least one year, later changed to until 4.0 came out,
In other words, support both "black" and "block", and "white" and
"welcome",
for at least 3 months, I suggest.
The bug report that introduced this change claimed 100% backward
compatability for at least one year, later changed to until 4.0 came out,
whenever that will be.
Of course it
On Sunday 19 July 2020 at 19:56:34, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> We only publish one set of rules so you will see that become welcome
> instead of white.
My feeling on this is that such a breaking change requires a fairly lengthy
backward-compatible transition period (with appropriate warning
--
> *Van: *"Kevin A. McGrail"
> *Aan: *"SA Mailing list" , "SpamAssassin
> Devel List"
> *Verzonden: *Zondag 19 juli 2020 18:09:36
> *Onderwerp: *IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST
> in process of bein
;SpamAssassin Devel
List"
Verzonden: Zondag 19 juli 2020 18:09:36
Onderwerp: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
All:
As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards
e i start to puke is "WHITELIST_TO" and
> "USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO" are renamed, it obviously affects users running
> *stable releases* and you guys are not capable to rename every
> appareance of BLACKLIST and WHITELIST at the same time
It's a balance of trying to support
the eval or unknown rule for descriptions.
The issue this morning is dealing with local rescoring or local rules
that use rules that are being renamed in stock ruleset. Do you have any
local rescoring or local rules built on *WHITELIST* or *BLACKLIST*? If
not, the issue should be minor.
Regards
.
If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
will become welcomelist and blacklist will become blocklist. More
On Friday 17 July 2020 at 19:17:42, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> this entire "movement" about changing language boiled down is nothing more
> than yet another example of white people deciding what is best for people of
> color - like has been going on for centuries.
I applaud your comment, but I
I think this bit is finally dying down so I will merely point out as the
last, final nail in the coffin on all of this, that the majority of
people on both the Apache and the Linux projects (as well as the other
larger commercial entities like Google, etc. that are engaged in this)
are NOT
1 - 100 of 1547 matches
Mail list logo
