Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > Justin Mason wrote: >> OK, we really need to figure out some way to kill these FAQs off. Every >> week, someone asks a question about why SpamAssassin is killing their >> server, and most of the time the answer is "stop using blacklist.cf and >> blacklist-uri.cf". If 1 person is asking the question, chances are >> there's another 10 people who aren't asking, and who are just ditching >> SpamAssassin entirely. :( > >> I think I'll add a new question right on the top of the FAQ list >> about this... >> >> What else can we do? > > Has anyone asked Bill to stop distributing the blacklist in a format > suitable for direct use with SpamAssassin? That, to me, seems to be > the most effective and sensible way to deal with it. I'd agree there. > Modifying the software, as has been discussed, seems a little > extreme to me. I dono, I think that having some --lint warnings generated when the overall config is really absurdly large seems useful for this kind of problem in general. A basic "um, dude, that's a lot of config, are you sure your server can handle this" might be a good thing. You never know when someone else might make a sa-blacklist, or some tool that auto-generates rules might get popular and get out-of-control sometimes.. etc..
However, the whole idea of having it kill SA is way out-of-bounds, IMHO. SA won't even do that if you feed it a conf file full of output from /dev/random...
