On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:14:37PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > fwiw, the preferred workflow from our perspective is that the > discussion about the upload happens beforehand, rather than > afterwards. Apologies. It's been a while since I uploaded to s-p-u. > On 12.03.2013 16:00, Debian Queue Viewer wrote: > >+spamassassin (3.3.1-1.1) stable; urgency=high > > "-1.1" seems a slightly odd version number for a maintainer upload. I went with the version number generated by dch's --security option, since it doesn't have an option to generate an s-p-u version and security seemed logically closest. Happy to re-upload with something else if it matters. > >+ * Fix the RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP rule to no longer consider addresses > >+ in the 5.0.0.0/8 range as invalid. (Closes: #696144) > >+ * Remove tests referencing the NJABL blacklist, which shut > >+ down as of 1 March, 2013. (Closes: #702839) > > Thankfully this one isn't as urgent as most other RBL shutdowns, as > the NJABL folks opted to simply empty the zones, thus returning no > match for all lookups, rather than the more common approach of > matching everything. Yes, although it's not clear how much longer the servers will continue to answer queries at all. At some point, the servers will shut down and queries will time out. > One question: what happens if the user is running sa-update, either > via the supplied cron integration or some other method? Do the rules > simply re-appear until upstream remove them? If upstream was still publishing njabl rules, then the ones received via sa-update would have priority over the ones from the package. However, it looks like they've already published updated rules via the sa-update channels, so people using sa-update will not require a package update. sa-update is not enabled by default, since we don't want to assume that users are OK with their hosts getting reconfigured underneath them, but it is recommended that people run it. noah
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature