You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2005/06/30 05:54:00 UTC
[Bug 4440] New: unblacklist_from non-functional in certain cases
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4440
Summary: unblacklist_from non-functional in certain cases
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.0.3
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Rules
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: brian@pongonova.net
Using the following in user_prefs:
blacklist_from *@*
unblacklist_from foo@bar.com
Results in USER_IN_BLACKLIST for all incoming e-mail from foo@bar.com,
indicating that foo@bar.com isn't being unblacklisted.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4440] unblacklist_from non-functional in certain cases
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4440
------- Additional Comments From duncf@debian.org 2005-06-30 12:57 -------
I've fixed the documentation for 3.1 (No vote needed for doc fixes, right?)
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4440] unblacklist_from non-functional in certain cases
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4440
jm@jmason.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.2.0 |3.3.0
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2006-12-12 12:40 -------
moving RFEs and low-priority stuff to 3.3.0 target
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4440] unblacklist_from non-functional in certain cases
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4440
parkerm@pobox.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.1.0
------- Additional Comments From parkerm@pobox.com 2005-06-30 11:25 -------
I just took at brief look at the code, and I honestly can't see how this works
at all, unless you have exact matching addresses.
blacklist_from *@* adds *@* to a data structure
unblacklist_from foo@bar.com just deletes foo@bar.com from that data structure,
but there is no entry for foo@bar.com.
What probably needs to happen is two lists, the normal blacklist/whitelist (yeah
whitelist uses the same code) and some sort of exclusion list, if the first
matches, you need to check the second to see if that specific address is excluded.
Should tackle for 3.1
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4440] unblacklist_from non-functional in certain cases
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4440
duncf@debian.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.1.0 |3.2.0
------- Additional Comments From duncf@debian.org 2005-06-30 12:45 -------
Michael, what you are describing was the intended behaviour as it was designed.
The (original) purpose of unblacklist was so that a sitewide configuration or a
user could override a distributed or sitewide blacklist options. It is not to
implement negative/conditional logic.
The long term solution is probably take all the blacklist/whitelist stuff and
put it in a plugin, and refactor it then. I don't think this can/should be done
before 3.1.
Moving to 3.2.0... We can play bugzilla pong if you disagree! :-)
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4440] unblacklist_from non-functional in certain cases
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4440
------- Additional Comments From parkerm@pobox.com 2005-06-30 13:02 -------
While it's true that this is "Documented" behavior, I'm certain that there is a
better way to do it. In fact, there might already be another bug out there
because I'm pretty sure we've talked about this before.
We can keep the 3.2.0 milestone, but I don't promise that I won't go ahead and
come up with something before then.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.