On Sat, 2022-04-16 at 05:30 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On 2022-04-16 00:35, J Doe wrote: > > > That's an interesting point. I guess the use case I was thinking of > > is if I added an address or domain for a particularly egregious > > spammer, but made a typo in the SA syntax, I would want to know > > about it on load so that it didn't continue to slip through. > > > > On the other hand, as Reindl notes, I can adjust the startup script > > myself or have a wrapper for it. > Consider doing something similar to what I do:
- I don't test SA-issued rules updates because they've been verified before being issued and I've never found errors in them. - I have a second 'development' SA install thats on a different computer to my main MTA and associated SA. This computer also holds the master copy of my local rules and a collection of spam that is used as test data for these rules. Whenever local rules are added or modified they are first checked to be error free and then run against the relevant test data to see if they do what they're supposed to do. If, and only if, they pass both lint and functional checks, my local rule set is uploaded to my live SA installation. These various operations are carried out by bash scripts. Additionally, I have a script that can run my local rule set against my entire library of test messages. Martin
