You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2005/01/31 02:10:24 UTC
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes:
> 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.
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
- JP
- WS_minus_JP
and existing clients can look up
- WS (which includes JP as before)
and upgrade at their leisure...
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFB/YWAMJF5cimLx9ARAsCpAJ9djZfXpjb5bnvqwVpB/DhWBj2ZJwCfSWUw
+04XkceKOdaxgxXAG6wXgLQ=
=QBtY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Raymond Dijkxhoorn <ra...@prolocation.net>.
Hi!
>> What about:
>
>> The seperate zonefile will contain both (WS+JP)
>> The multi list, since those seem to can use multi anyway, has the
>> seperated sources.
> I'm opposed to creating new lists like this.
>
> Besides, if we're going to ask people to add rules to their
> 3.0.x, we can just ask them to add:
>
>
> urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
> body URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Has URI in JP at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags URIBL_JP_SURBL net
>
> score URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.0
Thats how i am allready running JP since 3.x... so yes.
Bye,
Raymond.
Re: Removing JP from WS (Was: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Sunday, January 30, 2005, 7:28:42 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> OK I propose that we announce that the JP data will come out of
> WS say 7 January and ask anyone lacking a separate JP rule to add
> one. Example 3.0.x and 2.63/4 rules are on the SURBL Quick Start.
> How does this sound to everyone?
OK Raymond says he's ok with removing JP from WS and letting
people know they should add a JP rule or upgrade to SA 3.1.
How does everyone else feel about it?
Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Re: Removing JP from WS (Was: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Monday, January 31, 2005, 2:28:48 AM, Christer Borang wrote:
> In message <16...@surbl.org>, Jeff Chan writes:
>>OK I propose that we announce that the JP data will come out of
>>WS say 7 January and ask anyone lacking a separate JP rule to add
>>one. Example 3.0.x and 2.63/4 rules are on the SURBL Quick Start.
>>How does this sound to everyone?
> Quit hogging that time machine, I want a go too!
> Kidding aside, I assume you mean either February or March?
> //Christer
LOL! Ja 7 Feb.
Cheers,
Jeff C.
Removing JP from WS (Was: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals)
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Sunday, January 30, 2005, 7:15:40 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> Besides, if we're going to ask people to add rules to their
> 3.0.x, we can just ask them to add:
> urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
> body URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
> describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Has URI in JP at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
> tflags URIBL_JP_SURBL net
> score URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.0
> Right? ;-)
> Jeff C.
OK I propose that we announce that the JP data will come out of
WS say 7 January and ask anyone lacking a separate JP rule to add
one. Example 3.0.x and 2.63/4 rules are on the SURBL Quick Start.
How does this sound to everyone?
Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Sunday, January 30, 2005, 5:14:38 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Hi!
>>> 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.
>> 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
>>
>> - JP
>> - WS_minus_JP
>>
>> and existing clients can look up
>>
>> - WS (which includes JP as before)
>>
>> and upgrade at their leisure...
> What about:
> The seperate zonefile will contain both (WS+JP)
> The multi list, since those seem to can use multi anyway, has the
> seperated sources.
> Bye,
> Raymond.
I'm opposed to creating new lists like this.
Besides, if we're going to ask people to add rules to their
3.0.x, we can just ask them to add:
urirhssub URIBL_JP_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 64
body URIBL_JP_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_JP_SURBL')
describe URIBL_JP_SURBL Has URI in JP at http://www.surbl.org/lists.html
tflags URIBL_JP_SURBL net
score URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.0
Right? ;-)
Jeff C.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Raymond Dijkxhoorn <ra...@prolocation.net>.
Hi!
>> 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.
> 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
>
> - JP
> - WS_minus_JP
>
> and existing clients can look up
>
> - WS (which includes JP as before)
>
> and upgrade at their leisure...
What about:
The seperate zonefile will contain both (WS+JP)
The multi list, since those seem to can use multi anyway, has the
seperated sources.
Bye,
Raymond.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Revisiting high-level 3.1 goals
Posted by Larry Rosenman <le...@lerctr.org>.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Daniel Quinlan writes:
>> 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.
>
> 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
>
> - JP
> - WS_minus_JP
>
> and existing clients can look up
>
> - WS (which includes JP as before)
>
> and upgrade at their leisure...
Please do this.
It makes folks a LOT happier.
>
> - --j.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Exmh CVS
>
> iD8DBQFB/YWAMJF5cimLx9ARAsCpAJ9djZfXpjb5bnvqwVpB/DhWBj2ZJwCfSWUw
> +04XkceKOdaxgxXAG6wXgLQ=
> =QBtY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.surbl.org
> http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
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/