You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Raymond Dijkxhoorn <ra...@prolocation.net> on 2005/01/30 13:34:07 UTC
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Hi!
>> Real soon now.
> OK, let's ask Raymond and Joe to remove the JP data from WS
> before your final pre-3.1 mass check. Should we do that now?
>>> One of the things we planned for it was to move JP data out of WS on
>>> the SURBL lists.
>> So, WS includes all of JP? Or, are JP entries individually considered
>> and added manually over time to WS? Or, is the problem something else?
Please let us know what we should do, cutting out we should announce, the
actual removal is just altering one export script...
Bye,
Raymond.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>.
> BTW Any ideas when the last mass check for 3.1 might happen?
No, but it'll be announced in advance.
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
Thanks, I closed the ticket for the JP rule.
BTW Any ideas when the last mass check for 3.1 might happen?
We'd want to take the JP data out of WS before then.
Jeff C.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:24:09AM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
> I've created a bugzilla 4114 to request a separate JP rule in the
> default config for 3.1. When that is added we should remove the
> JP data from WS.
>
> SA devs please give us a heads up when the JP rule is added and
> that will trigger our changes on the SURBL data side.
I responded in the ticket, but JP has had its own rule in 3.1 for ages:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r47078 | felicity | 2004-09-22 19:27:17 -0400 (Wed, 22 Sep 2004) | 1 line
add in support for surbl jp list
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Sunday, January 30, 2005, 4:34:07 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
[When SA 3.1?]
>>> Real soon now.
>> OK, let's ask Raymond and Joe to remove the JP data from WS
>> before your final pre-3.1 mass check. Should we do that now?
>>>> One of the things we planned for it was to move JP data out of WS on
>>>> the SURBL lists.
>>> So, WS includes all of JP? Or, are JP entries individually considered
>>> and added manually over time to WS? Or, is the problem something else?
> Please let us know what we should do, cutting out we should announce, the
> actual removal is just altering one export script...
I've created a bugzilla 4114 to request a separate JP rule in the
default config for 3.1. When that is added we should remove the
JP data from WS.
SA devs please give us a heads up when the JP rule is added and
that will trigger our changes on the SURBL data side.
Cheers,
Jeff C.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Sunday, January 30, 2005, 8:03:37 PM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Oh crap. It's *me* that's confused and I'm sure I'll get 5 replies from
> people who don't read all their mail before sending replies telling me
> that. Anyway, disregard my last message.
> Adding JP to WS was clearly a horrible idea to begin with. However,
> wasting a bit on this is silly (and I think that's what I'm reacting to
> here), especially considering that Henry and I have been discussing a
> revamp of the SURBL rules where source would not matter and the number
> of bits set would matter -- we'd have to special case this.
Not to worry, I had to remove my foot from my mouth before
I could speak too. ;-)
I think we have all the cases covered. After we remove
JP from WS, anyone lacking a separate JP rule and not upgrading
to 3.1 can simply add a JP rule, as we've advised from the
beginning of JP. It's just that such a change did not get
into the 3.0 release.
Jeff C.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>.
Oh crap. It's *me* that's confused and I'm sure I'll get 5 replies from
people who don't read all their mail before sending replies telling me
that. Anyway, disregard my last message.
Adding JP to WS was clearly a horrible idea to begin with. However,
wasting a bit on this is silly (and I think that's what I'm reacting to
here), especially considering that Henry and I have been discussing a
revamp of the SURBL rules where source would not matter and the number
of bits set would matter -- we'd have to special case this.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>.
Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> writes:
> btw, I think requiring people to upgrade ASAP isn't necessarily a great
> idea; we can avoid it by setting up a new BL for "WS minus JP". then
> 3.1.0 can look up
Gah!!! I think you might be confused about this. There's no issue as
far as I can tell. JP is the new blacklist and it includes WS, the old
blacklist. The new blacklist should never have included WS
(#include-style, incidental overlap is okay, of course).
No longer importing WS into JP has no negative effect on any of these
users:
- people with pre-JP versions: don't have JP anyway
- people with pre-JP versions who added JP on their own: will still
have both JP and WS
- people running SVN HEAD or anything else that included JP already:
will still have WS!
No new blacklist needed.
Warning is merely a courtesy for any oddballs who are only using JP.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>.
Raymond Dijkxhoorn <ra...@prolocation.net> writes:
> Please let us know what we should do, cutting out we should announce, the
> actual removal is just altering one export script...
Considering that SA hasn't shipped with JP yet and that those hosts are
already caught in WS (which predates JP), I'd announce that you're
making the change in a week and then make the change.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/