On 2025-05-08 09:44:18 -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > That is absolutely true but it is not *for me* a sufficient reason to remove > a longstanding rule. I would need to be convinced that the marginal > improvements in noise and privacy for most users greatly outweighs the risk > that removing the rules will quietly break useful local configurations. > > That's *NOT* a veto, because there is no formal vote being held. Any > committer COULD remove the Validity rules, although I would hope that would > get a broader discussion first. I'm not eager to put my name on that choice, > but if the users and other PMC members broadly want Validity gone, I won't > oppose it any further than this explanation.
What's the current status? FYI, I've just noticed this issue with the Validity rules, though the RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_*_BLOCKED have appeared since May 2. Note that this is for a personal server (members of my family also have e-mail addresses, but for them, mail is redirected by postfix, thus SpamAssassin is not used). I looked at what messages had RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL (without _BLOCKED) in the past. Some of them are spam. But there is also quite a lot of legitimate mail: all from mailing-lists for my work, except a couple of messages from some user (sent via RENATER). So I'm wondering whether they are useful, and if they are, whether there is a way to use them conditionally (for instance, they are probably useless for messages from high-volume mailing-lists, which could also be part of the cause of reaching the limit). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Pascaline project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
