Re: [PATCH] urlfilter: Remove bundled Toulouse blacklist

[p27m <p27m@orange.fr>]

Hi Michael,

Yes, I think this is a good functional solution, although it would 
require a different implementation.
However, it does not address the original problem that led me to propose 
this patch: the failure of a backup restore on fresh install when the 
backup contains a recent Toulouse blacklist.

In fact, the IPFire DBL list also contains the following directories:
- ads
- porn
- violence

These are symlinks in the current Toulouse `blacklists.tar.gz`:
- ads -> publicite
- porn -> adult
- violence -> agressif

Therefore, if IPFire DBL is installed by default in new IPFire system, 
restoring a backup containing a recent Toulouse blacklist could still 
result in exactly the same directory/symlink conflict during the untar 
restoration.

Regards,
--
Philippe

Le 29/09/2026 à 15:19, Michael Tremer a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I generally do agree with dropping the old data. It is more than obsolete, but that leaves us with some new problems:
>
> * No data is available immediately. Users would have to go down to the section of the page where they can select a list, enable the updates and trigger a manual update. Only then they will be able to start the URL Filter. This is a very convoluted process to enable a feature that should be very easy to configure.
>
> * If we shipped IPFire DBL by default, that would be a very sensible solution actually. But then there is a danger that people will enable the categories they want, enable URL Filter, but never enable the automatic updates. If we enable the automatic updates ourselves, we would run into the problem that a lot of IPFire instances all over the world would be updating their blacklists although they are never being used which will simply waste disk space and bandwidth.
>
> So I think we need a change which is to ship IPFire DBL for new installations, enable the auto-updates by default, but then only make them actually work if URL filter is enabled at the top. That will solve the problem in the latter case.
>
> Does that sound good to you, too?
>
> -Michael