http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3421
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-24 15:01 -------
Subject: Re: clean-up DNSBL API
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>This adds a fourth option named "hops" to the DNSBL IP test rules.
>
>It might make more sense to swap options three and four since the fourth
>option is somewhat more common and may become really common if we switch
>many tests to use firsttrusted instead of testing everything (well,
>untrusted plus the firsttrusted).
>
>Comments?
ick. :(
We need a better API. This is, after all, a public API; when we change
the ordering or the selection-of-IPs mechanism, we're going to need to
keep backwards compat to avoid third-party breakage.
We have some semantics in the name of the function, some in the set
string, some in additional arguments... it seems inconsistent, messy,
and hard to support ongoing.
thinking: should this be an eval test at all? should we just define a
new rule type? Why is a DNSBL lookup a "header eval test" in the
first place, apart from historical accident?
What about this...
dnsbl NAME_OF_TEST setname zone [name="value" ...]
where the "name=value" pairs can contain:
type="{A,TXT}" type of query
sub="{1,0}" 1 for check_rbl_sub semantics
subpattern="127.0.0.[456]" pattern for sub tests
subbit="4" bitwise AND pattern "
subsbeval="(S2 / S9) > 5.00)" Senderbase eval "
ipset="{all,firsttrusted,untrusted}" select IPs to test
and any future ones we care to add....
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFAsnCiQTcbUG5Y7woRAoEXAJwMQdcM7OZ5mLHchuKHTDK7jk7McwCgtRO3
YsjUAs5F6mOS6l91Z/RnfRc=
=k05c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
