Re: Ways to reduce calls to Validity BLs (was Validity (return path blocklist))

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 <[email protected]> - 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)