On 12/5/22 16:10, giova...@paclan.it wrote:
On 11/27/22 21:58, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I have emails from wayfair and Dell that hit many of the MISSING_* rules but
these headers are clearly displayed.
* 0.5 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
* 1.0 MISSING_FROM Missing From: header
* 1.8 M
On 11/27/22 21:58, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I have emails from wayfair and Dell that hit many of the MISSING_* rules but
these headers are clearly displayed.
* 0.5 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
* 1.0 MISSING_FROM Missing From: header
* 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
* 1
"Kevin A. McGrail" writes:
> #2 Work on the code so that short circuiting or at least the scoring
> behaves as with 3.4.6.
As penance for ranting I went back and re-read everything more
carefully, but feel free to ignore me if I am being unhelpful.
I don't think a -2 shortcircuit rule makes
Following up on my previous note I think we are working on #2. I see
that 8078 was reopened and there is some improvements / weighing in on a
patch from Giovanni that might resolve the issue too!
On 12/4/2022 3:02 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
OK, so then we have really two Choices:
#1 accept
As someone that is running a large distributed spamassassin installation, I
depend on shortcircuit to handle large amounts of mail quickly that does
not need scored further. The change in behavior has potential for negative
impact that I will have to test carefully before moving to v4.
On Sun, De
OK, so then we have really two Choices:
#1 accept that no code changes are needed, we've fixed a rule(s) we know
might trigger wrong around MISSING HEADERS and we just document the
change in the UPGRADE that shortcircuit may continue to run more meta
rules to finish them out which might not ha
Bill Cole writes:
> On 2022-12-04 at 09:57:09 UTC-0500 (Sun, 04 Dec 2022 09:57:09 -0500)
> Greg Troxel
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> Putting on my CS pedant hat, I guess the big question is if there is a
>> violation of a previously published specification.
>
> If not, it would only be a con
On 2022-12-04 at 09:57:09 UTC-0500 (Sun, 04 Dec 2022 09:57:09 -0500)
Greg Troxel
is rumored to have said:
> Putting on my CS pedant hat, I guess the big question is if there is a
> violation of a previously published specification.
If not, it would only be a consequence of no definitive clear s
"Kevin A. McGrail" writes:
> I think that will have to go to discussion since if the rules don't short
> circuit the way they used to, other rules outside of the ones we control
> are going to act oddly. The one that was reported was with validity for
> example.
>
> What happens if I have a loca
Feel free to reopen the bug if you want, I really have no time or desire to
work on these right now. I didn't analyze if skipping do_meta_tests for
shortcircuiting has any negative consequences, but if someone wants to prove
it doesn't, go for it and I'll vote on it. It not enough to just post
I think that will have to go to discussion since if the rules don't short
circuit the way they used to, other rules outside of the ones we control
are going to act oddly. The one that was reported was with validity for
example.
What happens if I have a local rule that's high scoring and meta that
Of course it does and processing doesn't need to stop into a brickwall when
it activates. It simply finishes metas which is not that expensive and
might provide some additional useful hits. No sense postponing 4.0.0 to try
to tweak this further.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 09:28:02AM -0500, Kevin
I have not checked but does the short circuiting actually work? The goal of
it is to lower the resource usage of the tool. If it continues to run and
generate longer than we have a problem still.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2022, 08:50 Henrik K wrote:
>
> Fixed simply with some rule changes as described in t
Fixed simply with some rule changes as described in the bug.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 05:28:00PM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8078 is now open on this
> issue.
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apa
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8078 is now open on this
issue.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:11 PM wrote:
> On 11/28/22 17:47, Bi
On 11/28/22 17:47, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2022-11-28 at 11:03:29 UTC-0500 (Mon, 28 Nov 2022 11:03:29 -0500)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:42 AM Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
[...]
Also, would be helpful to know if this is different than 3.4.6's behavior.
Oh yes, I meant
Damn. Was hoping that wasn't the case. Can we get a bug open?
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022, 11:47 Bill Cole <
sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> On 2022-11-28 at 11:03:29 UTC-0500 (Mon, 28 Nov 2022 11:03:29 -0500)
> Alex
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:42 AM
On 2022-11-28 at 11:03:29 UTC-0500 (Mon, 28 Nov 2022 11:03:29 -0500)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:42 AM Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
[...]
Also, would be helpful to know if this is different than 3.4.6's
behavior.
Oh yes, I meant to mention that it is different be
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:42 AM Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
> What's the score on that short circuit Validity rule?
>
-2.0 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE RBL: Sender in Validity Safe - Contact
certificat...@validity.com
[Return Path SenderScore Safe L
What's the score on that short circuit Validity rule? I think the
expectation is that it's a -100 type rule but I could be wrong. Did you
confirm with -D that the behavior is as you describe and more rules kept
running after the short circuit? I don't use the short circuit.
Also, would be helpf
Hi,
> Well, a short circuit rule kind of breaks things in the middle so I do not
> think you should really spend too much time on rules that hit/didn't hit.
>
> I like validity but I don't think it justifies a short circuit, FYI.
>
Okay, it's been removed, but somehow the presence of that didn't
Well, a short circuit rule kind of breaks things in the middle so I do not
think you should really spend too much time on rules that hit/didn't hit.
I like validity but I don't think it justifies a short circuit, FYI.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeri
Hi,
> I have emails from wayfair and Dell that hit many of the MISSING_*
>> > rules
>> > but these headers are clearly displayed.
>> >
>> > * 0.5 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
>> > * 1.0 MISSING_FROM Missing From: header
>> > * 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
>> > * 1.
Hi,
> I have emails from wayfair and Dell that hit many of the MISSING_*
> > rules
> > but these headers are clearly displayed.
> >
> > * 0.5 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
> > * 1.0 MISSING_FROM Missing From: header
> > * 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
> > * 1.4 MISSI
On 2022-11-27 at 15:58:58 UTC-0500 (Sun, 27 Nov 2022 15:58:58 -0500)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
Hi,
I have emails from wayfair and Dell that hit many of the MISSING_*
rules
but these headers are clearly displayed.
* 0.5 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
* 1.0 MISSING_FROM Missing
Hi,
I have emails from wayfair and Dell that hit many of the MISSING_* rules
but these headers are clearly displayed.
* 0.5 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
* 1.0 MISSING_FROM Missing From: header
* 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
* 1.4 MISSING_DATE Missing Date: header
On 8/8/2014 9:32 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
>your rules are apparently out of sync, some define score for RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4
>but do not define the rules...
Which is why I asked the question. Any rule named RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4 is
unlikely to have been composed by myself and no-one else has author
On Fri, August 8, 2014 09:14, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 06.08.14 16:19, James B. Byrne wrote:
>>OS=CentOS-6.5
>>SA=3.3.1
>>
>>I ran spamassassin -D -llint and see this in the output:
>>
>>Aug 6 15:59:03.983 [4533] dbg: config: warning: score set for non-existent
>>rule RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4
On 06.08.14 16:19, James B. Byrne wrote:
OS=CentOS-6.5
SA=3.3.1
I ran spamassassin -D -llint and see this in the output:
Aug 6 15:59:03.983 [4533] dbg: config: warning: score set for non-existent
rule RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4
did you run sa-update?
Do you use sa-compile?
your rules are apparently
--On Thursday, August 07, 2014 10:37 AM -0400 "James B. Byrne"
wrote:
On Wed, August 6, 2014 17:30, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 06, 2014 6:24 PM -0400 "James B. Byrne"
wrote:
I am constrained to run the version provided by the upstream distro
packager (RedHat). When
On Thu, August 7, 2014 15:53, Bob Proulx wrote:
> James B. Byrne wrote:
>> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>> > Policies such as this show a complete lack of understanding on how to run
>> > production infrastructure. RH will never update SA in RHEL6 to any new
>> > release. Your best course of actio
James B. Byrne wrote:
> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > Policies such as this show a complete lack of understanding on how to run
> > production infrastructure. RH will never update SA in RHEL6 to any new
> > release. Your best course of action is to fix your broken policy. Failing
> > that, you
On 8/7/14, 9:37 AM, "James B. Byrne" wrote:
>Which explains, of course, why Linux distributions belonging to the
>RedHAt/CentOs/ScientificLinux/RHOS/ClearOS family are so lacking in
>popularity
>and so seldom found in corporate environments.
Those distros are popular because corporate environmen
On Wed, August 6, 2014 17:30, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Wednesday, August 06, 2014 6:24 PM -0400 "James B. Byrne"
> wrote:
>
>> I am constrained to run the version provided by the upstream distro
>> packager (RedHat). When they update SA then, and only then, will I get
>> the upgrade.
>
On Aug 6, 2014, at 3:24 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Wed, August 6, 2014 16:27, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> MSPIKE = MailSpike RBL.
>>
>> Without checking, you are running an old version of SA and the rules are
>> not valid on your installation so it's skipping them. It's inno
James B. Byrne wrote:
> I am constrained to run the version provided by the upstream distro packager
> (RedHat). When they update SA then, and only then, will I get the upgrade.
If Red Hat is like other packagers then they are depending upon
sa-update to populate /var/lib/spamassassin/ with updat
On 8/6/2014 5:24 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Wed, August 6, 2014 16:27, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
MSPIKE = MailSpike RBL.
Without checking, you are running an old version of SA and the rules are
not valid on your installation so it's skipping them. It's innocuous
and by design that you are skip
On 08/06/2014 11:24 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
I am constrained to run the version provided by the upstream distro packager
(RedHat). When they update SA then, and only then, will I get the upgrade.
as a wise man named Benny Pedersen once said:
"you live in a precompiled problem"
SCR
--On Wednesday, August 06, 2014 6:24 PM -0400 "James B. Byrne"
wrote:
I am constrained to run the version provided by the upstream distro
packager (RedHat). When they update SA then, and only then, will I get
the upgrade.
Policies such as this show a complete lack of understanding on how to
On Wed, August 6, 2014 16:27, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>>
>
> MSPIKE = MailSpike RBL.
>
> Without checking, you are running an old version of SA and the rules are
> not valid on your installation so it's skipping them. It's innocuous
> and by design that you are skipping those rules. Upgrading t
On 8/6/2014 4:19 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
OS=CentOS-6.5
SA=3.3.1
I ran spamassassin -D -llint and see this in the output:
Aug 6 15:59:03.983 [4533] dbg: config: warning: score set for non-existent
rule RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4
Aug 6 15:59:03.983 [4533] dbg: config: warning: score set for non-existe
OS=CentOS-6.5
SA=3.3.1
I ran spamassassin -D -llint and see this in the output:
Aug 6 15:59:03.983 [4533] dbg: config: warning: score set for non-existent
rule RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4
Aug 6 15:59:03.983 [4533] dbg: config: warning: score set for non-existent
rule RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL
Aug 6 15:59:03.983
Albert E. Whale wrote:
> I recently upgraded to 3.2.1
>
> In doing so, I find that the following rules which were previously used
> are no longer in service.
>
> Can someone explain why?
>
Um, because it's an upgrade?
Rules get removed frequently. They get removed for lots of different
reasons.
I recently upgraded to 3.2.1
In doing so, I find that the following rules which were previously used
are no longer in service.
Can someone explain why?
[/etc/mail/spamassassin] spamassassin --lint
[22753] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule
HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE
[22753] warn: co
> rulesemporium just moved to a new server. Looks like some of the
files didn't make it.
>
>> Is it just me or are the following rules missing?
>>
>> 70_sare_unsub.cf
>> 70_sare_uri.cf
>
i dont see those 2 files in the packs phil sent me dunno what to
tell ya.
d
Title: Missing rules at the Emporium?
rulesemporium just moved to a new server. Looks like
some of the files didn't make it.
Loren
- Original Message -
From:
Robert
Leonard
Cc: SA List
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:35
AM
Subject: Missing rul
Title: Missing rules at the Emporium?
SARE has
moved to a new home. Its possible these didn't get moved
over. And SARE is working on a new surprise. More testing
needed. :)
--Chris
-Original Message-From: Robert Leonard
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, Decemb
Title: Missing rules at the Emporium?
Is it just me or are the following rules missing?
70_sare_unsub.cf
70_sare_uri.cf
48 matches
Mail list logo
