On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 02:54:08PM +0200, Damian wrote:
> > > # __SA4 injected inside amavis via $suppl_attrib->{rule_hits}
> > > meta SA4 __SA4
> > > score SA4 1
> > > describe SA4 dummy
> > yields
> > > SA dbg: rules-all: unrun dependencies prevented meta SA4 from
> > > running: __SA4
>
> The a
On 11/10/2022 15:08, Henrik K wrote:
This is because __RCVD_IN_DNSWL is not supposed to be a meta. KAM channel
overrides it to "disable" the rule. I just posted on the list about that..
Oh, right! Thanks for the pointer. Didn't catch up to this point yet.
Greetings, Wolfgang
seval: initialize check_rbl_sub for
> > rule RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, set dnswl-firsttrusted, subtest
> > (?^aa:^127\\.0\\.\\d+\\.3$)
> > Oct 11 14:32:33.595 [1549685] dbg: dnseval: initialize check_rbl_sub for
> > rule RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED, set dnswl-firsttrusted, subtest
> >
# __SA4 injected inside amavis via $suppl_attrib->{rule_hits}
meta SA4 __SA4
score SA4 1
describe SA4 dummy
yields
SA dbg: rules-all: unrun dependencies prevented meta SA4 from
running: __SA4
The above is slightly misleading, even in SA3 one had to predeclare a
default via
meta __SA4 0
me
ttrusted, subtest
(?^aa:^127\\.0\\.\\d+\\.255$)
Oct 11 14:32:33.627 [1549685] dbg: rules-all: ran meta rule __RCVD_IN_DNSWL, no
hit
Oct 11 14:32:34.462 [1549685] dbg: rules-all: unrun dependencies prevented meta
KAM_BAD_DNSWL from running: KAM_MESSAGE_EMAILBL_PCCC, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,
RCVD_IN_
Should be fixed in rc4.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8060
There remains a bug in the context of $suppl_attrib.
# __SA4 injected inside amavis via $suppl_attrib->{rule_hits}
meta SA4 __SA4
score SA4 1
describe SA4 dummy
yields
SA dbg: rules-all: unrun dependencies preve
On 11/10/2022 13:29, Henrik K wrote:
Would need exact sample of ruleset, this is too vague to work on. What are
all the __SUBMETAs?
Would it be ok to send you my ruleset with test.eml offlist? I do not want
to send them here publicly or to bugzilla, because they contain a lot of
local brandi
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:09:03PM +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
>
> And I've still cases were a simple ">" is not evaluated as well...
>
> I have
> meta __META1 (__SUBMETAX + . + __SUBMETAXN)
> with
> dbg: rules: ran meta rule __META1 ==&
On 11/10/2022 13:22, Henrik K wrote:
Remains unclear if you applied the patch from
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8059 ?
I applied both on rc3 via .spec:
+ echo 'Patch #1 (SA4rc3_uridnsbl.patch):'
Patch #1 (SA4rc3_uridnsbl.patch):
+ /usr/bin/patch --no-backup-if-mismatch -p
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:09:03PM +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 12:23, Henrik K wrote:
> > Should be fixed in rc4.
> >
> > https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8060
>
> Well, this indeed fixes this test case. But my initial problem which I
> though is described in t
endency '__UNDEF'
but IMO this should not stop the meta rule from working, because it would
basically destroy the possibility to make local dependencies on mainline
rules. You would have to check for "undefined dependecy" on every sa-update
then, what makes automatic updates
gt;
> > > Works fine here.
> >
> > Really? So why doesn't it work here on RHEL7 and RHEL8?
> >
> > Tried again with
> > meta __SA4TA3_1 6
> > meta __SA4TA3_2 2
> > meta SA4TA3(__SA4TA3_1 > 2) && (__SA4TA3_2 > 1)
> > score
t; Tried again with
> meta __SA4TA3_1 6
> meta __SA4TA3_2 2
> meta SA4TA3(__SA4TA3_1 > 2) && (__SA4TA3_2 > 1)
> score SA4TA3 0.1
>
> I see
> dbg: rules: ran meta rule __SA4TA3_2 ==> got hit (2)
> dbg: rules: ran meta rule __SA4TA3_1 ==> got hit (6)
>
> But no line für SA4TA3 and no report or final score.
Ok I can now reproduce it, only sometimes it hits SA4TA3, sometimes not.
Will investigate.
t@91d4e83fb538:/# spamassassin -Dall - &1 | grep -E
'tests=|SA4TA'
Oct 11 08:57:26.413 [5489] dbg: rules: ran meta rule __SA4TA3_2
==> got hit (2)
Oct 11 08:57:26.413 [5489] dbg: rules: ran meta rule __SA4TA3_1
==> got hit (6)
Oct 11 08:57:26.417 [5489] dbg: check:
.4 as well.
Works fine here.
Really? So why doesn't it work here on RHEL7 and RHEL8?
Tried again with
meta __SA4TA3_1 6
meta __SA4TA3_2 2
meta SA4TA3(__SA4TA3_1 > 2) && (__SA4TA3_2 > 1)
score SA4TA3 0.1
I see
dbg: rules: ran meta rule __SA4TA3_2 ======> got hit
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:50:38AM +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
>
> In case of URIBL_SBL I don't know why it gets undefined, since other RBLs
> work in the same place (eg. URIBL_BLACK) as expected and the result is 1.
Thanks for the tip, found the problem. Should be fixed in rc4.
https://bz.apa
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:50:38AM +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
>
> And another quite simple ruleset...
> meta __SA4TA3_1 6
> meta __SA4TA3_2 2
> meta __SA4TA3(__SA4TA3_1 > 2) && (__SA4TA3_2 > 1)
> doesn't set __SA4TA3. This was working an SA3.4 as well.
Works fine here.
> Is this wanted b
Hi!
I switched from 3.4.6 to 4.0.0-rc3 last week and since then I experience
unexpected/missing results from meta rules which definitely worked on 3.4.6.
I noticed it especially on one large meta rule which "summarizes" the
results using "+", "&&", &q
On 02/04/2021 13:46, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
Hi!
It seems that 3.4.5 changed the behavior of URIBL lookups in a quite bad
way compared to 3.4.4.
Just as a pointer:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7897
Greetings,
Wolfgang
3.4.5 as well.
But if I use a meta rule like:
meta DENYTEST( URIBL_DENY || )
I see the rule triggering on 3.4.4 but not on 3.4.5 anymore.
I tested this on RHEL6 with 3.4.4, RHEL8 3.4.4 and 3.4.5, RHEL7 3.4.5.
Is this a know bug?
Greetings,
Wolfgang
--
Wolfg
accumulation of spammy words.
>
OK, understood. I typically use portmanteau to build low scoring rules
that are combined by an unchanging meta-rule, e.g. one combines a
portmanteau rule that matches selling phrases with another that matches
product names. If either portmanteau rule fires on ham
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:34:57 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> If you're doing this regularly I'd suggest writing a small shell
> script or perl script to process a definition file to generate the
> rules.
Thereby obeying the Fundamental Theorem of Software Engineering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Jeff_47 wrote:
Is there a way to include all the __L_LOANS_BODY* rules using a wildcard in
the meta rule? It is cumbersome when I want to add a new rule to have to go
and add it to the meta rule as well, not to mention making that rule line
very long! (ie, something like
Martin Gregorie-2 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-12-30 at 07:25 -0800, Jeff_47 wrote:
>
>> Put another way, I'd like to be able to add a new __L_LOANS_BODY rule and
>> have the meta rule automatically incorporate it. Is this possible?
>>
> I have a consider
On Fri, 2011-12-30 at 07:25 -0800, Jeff_47 wrote:
> Put another way, I'd like to be able to add a new __L_LOANS_BODY rule and
> have the meta rule automatically incorporate it. Is this possible?
>
I have a considerably larger collection of rules and phrases, but then
again, I need
today\b/i
body__L_LOANS_BODY3/\b100 day loans\b/i
body__L_LOANS_BODY4/\bYour pre\-approved\b/i
etc...
and then a meta rule:
metaL_LOANS_MULTI (__L_LOANS_BODY1 + __L_LOANS_BODY2 +
__L_LOANS_BODY3 ... etc> 4)
Here's my question:
Is there a way to include
/\b100 day loans\b/i
body__L_LOANS_BODY4/\bYour pre\-approved\b/i
etc...
and then a meta rule:
metaL_LOANS_MULTI (__L_LOANS_BODY1 + __L_LOANS_BODY2 +
__L_LOANS_BODY3 ... etc > 4)
Here's my question:
Is there a way to include all the __L_LOANS_BODY* rules using a wil
gt; I have a few strings that i want to use with a meta rule.
>>
>> example :
>> ---
>> body __WORD_01 /string1/
>> body __WORD_02 /string2/
>> body __WORD_03 /string3/
>>
>> body __WORD_04 /string4/i
>> body __WORD_05 /string5/i
>
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 11:46 +0100, R.Smits wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have searched the archives, but not found a clear answer to this...
> maybe someone can give me a hint.
>
> I have a few strings that i want to use with a meta rule.
>
> example :
> ---
> b
Hello,
I have searched the archives, but not found a clear answer to this...
maybe someone can give me a hint.
I have a few strings that i want to use with a meta rule.
example :
---
body __WORD_01 /string1/
body __WORD_02 /string2/
body __WORD_03 /string3/
body __WORD_04 /string4/i
y 2008 15:09
> To: SpamAssassin
> Subject: Meta rule
>
> Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong here?
>
> meta WEBTENT_LB __LONGWORDS && (__BAYES_50 || __BAYES_60 ||
> __BAYES_80 || __BAYES_95 || __BAYES_99)
> describe WEBTENT_LB Contains long words and
Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong here?
meta WEBTENT_LB __LONGWORDS && (__BAYES_50 || __BAYES_60 || __BAYES_80 ||
__BAYES_95 || __BAYES_99)
describe WEBTENT_LB Contains long words and Bayesian spam probability of 50% or
higher
score WEBTENT_LB 3.5
While my messages hit both LONGWORDS an
a score of 3.5 will be
needed for the effect to work as some of these still score below 2.0.
I've created a meta rule to add rules together, would I do the same like
this? I've used && to put rules together, can || be used as 'OR'?
meta NEW_RULE (LONGWORDS &&
ed for the effect to work as some of these still score below 2.0.
I've created a meta rule to add rules together, would I do the same like
this? I've used && to put rules together, can || be used as 'OR'?
meta NEW_RULE (LONGWORDS && (BAYES_50 || BAYES_60 || BAYES_
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:25:23 +0100, Ben Wylie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Am running SpamAssassin 3.1.2 on Windows 2003 Server.
>
>I have written a meta rule and i want it to only hit if it hits the
>first rule AND one of the three in brackets.
>
>This syntax doesn't
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 07:25:23PM +0100, Ben Wylie wrote:
> This syntax doesn't seem to work as it hits when it hits one of the last
> three but not the first one.
>
> meta DRUGS_RX (__RX + (__SPEN_DING || __PRESCRIPTION || __SAVE))
You want a boolean and (&&). The way you've done it the "+" l
Ben Wylie wrote:
> Am running SpamAssassin 3.1.2 on Windows 2003 Server.
>
> I have written a meta rule and i want it to only hit if it hits the
> first rule AND one of the three in brackets.
>
> This syntax doesn't seem to work as it hits when it hits one of the
> la
Am running SpamAssassin 3.1.2 on Windows 2003 Server.
I have written a meta rule and i want it to only hit if it hits the
first rule AND one of the three in brackets.
This syntax doesn't seem to work as it hits when it hits one of the last
three but not the first one.
meta DRUGS_RX
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 12:05, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:00:18AM -0600, Casey King wrote:
>> have created two rules, and I want to make sure all geocities
>> emails are tagged as spam, while at the same time, allowing SA
>> users messages to be allowed without spam tagg
ubject: Re: Testing meta rule
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:00:18AM -0600, Casey King wrote:
> have created two rules, and I want to make sure all geocities emails
> are tagged as spam, while at the same time, allowing SA users messages
> to be allowed without spam tagging.
Why not just
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:00:18AM -0600, Casey King wrote:
> have created two rules, and I want to make sure all geocities emails are
> tagged as spam, while at the same time, allowing SA users messages to be
> allowed without spam tagging.
Why not just whitelist, or even better skip processing f
Title: Testing meta rule
I am requesting someone to please send me an email from the SA users list with a normal geocities conversation in the body of the message. I have created two rules, and I want to make sure all geocities emails are tagged as spam, while at the same time, allowing SA
Sven Riedel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a while back someone kindly posted a rule here that matches on
> empty mails:
>
> header __X Content-Type =~ /^(message|multipart)/i
> rawbody __Y /\S/
> meta Z ( !X && !Y )
>
> Now I find that Z matches on all mails - investigation shows
> that Y matches on all non
Don't know. This meta rule seems to work fine for me.
Perhaps one of __X, __Y or Z is defined another rule. SA wouldn't
warn you on it.
Try changing their names to something longer and unique.
> On 8/3/05, Sven Riedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
Title: RE: Question regarding meta rule handling
Hi,
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 08:18:16AM +0200, Sven Riedel wrote:
> > header __X Content-Type =~ /^(message|multipart)/i
> > rawbody __Y /\S/
> > meta Z ( !X && !Y )
> >
> > and yet the rule trigger
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 08:18:16AM +0200, Sven Riedel wrote:
> header __X Content-Type =~ /^(message|multipart)/i
> rawbody __Y /\S/
> meta Z ( !X && !Y )
>
> and yet the rule triggers for me. Doing a
Of course. __X != X ... :)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"The question is to what extent par
Hi,
a while back someone kindly posted a rule here that matches on
empty mails:
header __X Content-Type =~ /^(message|multipart)/i
rawbody __Y /\S/
meta Z ( !X && !Y )
Now I find that Z matches on all mails - investigation shows
that Y matches on all non-whitespaces as it should, and X
doesn't
If it didn't
trigger, return 0 immediately. Otherwise, proceed with the code.
To answer the next possible question, BTW:
meta __meta_a __sub_meta_a && __sub_meta_b
meta __meta_b __sub_meta_c && __sub_meta_d
meta RULE __meta_a || __meta_b
The SA code determines that RU
Rocky Olsen wrote:
>I'm wondering what the order of evaluation is for the following scenario.
>
>body __sub_meta_a some-not-costly-eval
>body __sub_meta_b a-costly-eval
>
>meta meta_rule (__sub_meta_a && __sub_meta_b)
>
>
>under this example, which of the following happen?
>
>a) __sub_meta_a A
I'm wondering what the order of evaluation is for the following scenario.
body __sub_meta_a some-not-costly-eval
body __sub_meta_b a-costly-eval
meta meta_rule (__sub_meta_a && __sub_meta_b)
under this example, which of the following happen?
a) __sub_meta_a AND __sub_meta_b are evaluated f
50 matches
Mail list logo
