Request: Disable update.bad.phishing.sites job when phishing
checks are disabled
glenn.steen at gmail.com
Thu Apr 10 15:07:55 IST 2008
On 10/04/2008, Alex Broens <ms-list at alexb.ch> wrote:
> On 4/10/2008 2:12 PM, Gary Pentland wrote:
> > mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info wrote:
> > > so its not possible to check *if* feature enabled and *if* not enabled,
> skip update?
> > >
> > > the moment you enable the feature, the check will see *if* enabled
> > > and run the update.
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > If you really want to do this, change the cron script to check the
> > MailScanner.conf for the feature and exit is it finds it disabled...
> > Something along the lines of...
> > if grep 'Find Phishing Fraud = yes'
> > /opt/local/mailscanner/etc/MailScanner.conf RUN UPDATE
> SCRIPT else DON'T RUN UPDATE SCRIPT fi
> > This is the beauty of open source code! If *you* have an unusual
> > requirement, *you* can change it to suit your needs. Obviously if
> > you do change something that may be useful to others then send the
> > diffs to Jules so he can include it in a future release. Personally
> > if this was to be a feature then I'd suggest adding "Update Phishing
> > Config Files" as a Yes/No in MailScanner.conf and grep on that, but
> > then again, I don't need this feature...
> > However, cron is still running a job and if your concern is wasted
> > resources for something you are sure you'll never use, delete or
> > disable the cron script altogether.
> In my case, I delete the file and am happy. But if I consider a feature
> might come in handy, does open source mean I have to cook something for
> myself only and never request an enhancement which could come in handly for
> to others ?
No, I didn't read Gary as saying that... only needed when the one you
request it of doesn't agree with you, and hence won't do the
> No everybody has coding skills, but may have decent ideas... get the point?
Sure... (You are most certainly not one of those...?;-)
Then again, not all requests are merited to be acted on. In this case,
you didn't see the point I was making (and Jules as well), it seems.
The difference in opinion can be summed up like:
Your view: Don't run updates for things that are installed, but are
disabled in the configuration of MailScanner.
This *might* be fine for things that only run within MailScanner (like
the phishing net), but is probably wrong for things like an AV scanner
("hmmm, I'll check this infected/blocked file with this AV scanenr I
have instaleld but don't use....":-). But it will introduce an
admittedly short-ish lag before updates get done... More than I want.
Simpler to have the rule: If installed, do updates:-).
My/Jules view: Update everything that is installed.
This has two drawbacks:
- You actually need do whatever config is needed for the updates to
work... Or live with log errors or whatnot:-).
- It does spend a few resources. If your system don't have them to
spend... By all means, do whatever necessary to disable them. Like
deinstalling that extra AV;). For the phishing... well, it really is
pretty minor... I wouldn't even bother:-):-).
All in all, is this really something that need another option (Update
Unused But Installed Components) or a change in default behavior?
I don't think so.
> I'm think about the zillions of possibly unnecessary file transfers which
> are being made done.
Hardly zillions, however many that is:-).
> I'd bet quite a few haven't noticed that they're downloading stuff they
> don't need, which also places a load on the server offering these files.
But it is for the "lazy bum admin" that this is actually a Good Thing(tm)!
> same can apply to SA updates, AV, rules_du_jour etc.
Well... at least the last need some very specific intervention from
the one doing the installation ... to be installed ...:-).
Chill Alex, this is definitely not a big issue.
If you know enough to be asking, you know enough to "fix" it. For all
else, the default behavior is "right".... IMO:-).
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
More information about the MailScanner