Bug 6181 - Add option to automatically coral-ify sa-update URIs
Summary: Add option to automatically coral-ify sa-update URIs
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: sa-update (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2.5
Hardware: Other All
: P5 enhancement
Target Milestone: Future
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-08-19 06:42 UTC by John Hardin
Modified: 2013-06-19 17:02 UTC (History)
1 user (show)



Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description John Hardin 2009-08-19 06:42:28 UTC
Add a flag to the config to tell sa-update to coral-ify the update URIs, e.g.:

http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/90_2tld.cf/

is rewritten to:

http://daryl.dostech.ca.nyud.net:8080/sa-update/sare/90_2tld.cf/

I know some have seen problems with Coral, but I've been running sa-update with  coral-ified URIs for a while now and I haven't seen any issues. I suspect problems are due to your site being "close" to a dodgy cache.

This would be a kindness to third-party rules publishers, and would allow sa-update to automatically keep the MIRRORED.BY files current without breaking Coral use at those sites wishing to use Coral.
Comment 1 John Hardin 2009-08-19 06:44:28 UTC
This would also allow coral-ifying URIs retrieved from DNS TXT records...
Comment 2 Mark Martinec 2013-01-17 02:19:52 UTC
This topic has been revived on the ML recently.
Just bringing-up the last-changed date on this PR.
Comment 3 Kevin A. McGrail 2013-01-17 02:25:41 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> This topic has been revived on the ML recently.
> Just bringing-up the last-changed date on this PR.

I'm also reaching out to ASF Board unofficially to see if using Coral is something ASF would frown upon.  I sent a note about this on the 4th and pinged again today.
Comment 4 Kevin A. McGrail 2013-02-11 16:27:13 UTC
I haven't gotten an unofficial response so I will add this as a question in our next quarterly report to the board if Coral is something we can consider using officially for the project.

My gut tells me that they will kibash this because we should ideally be using ASF resources...
Comment 5 Kevin A. McGrail 2013-06-18 03:51:25 UTC
(In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #4)
> I haven't gotten an unofficial response so I will add this as a question in
> our next quarterly report to the board if Coral is something we can consider
> using officially for the project.
> 
> My gut tells me that they will kibash this because we should ideally be
> using ASF resources...

Added to quarterly report for feedback from Board.
Comment 6 Kevin A. McGrail 2013-06-19 17:02:43 UTC
(In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #5)
> (In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #4)
> > I haven't gotten an unofficial response so I will add this as a question in
> > our next quarterly report to the board if Coral is something we can consider
> > using officially for the project.
> > 
> > My gut tells me that they will kibash this because we should ideally be
> > using ASF resources...
> 
> Added to quarterly report for feedback from Board.

Preliminary feedback:

 As long as the master copy is on ASF hardware, I don't see this
               as a board level issue.  I would encourage talking directly
               with the infrastructure team as they are genuinely curious as
               to why the existing mirrors aren't sufficient
               (http://www.apache.org/info/how-to-mirror), and have in the
               past been willing to support working with external providers
               for special cases (e.g., http://s.apache.org/sf-aoo-1).
         

Anyone remember why Infra didn't like our current sa-update mirror system?