On 13/10/2011 1:45 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 23:32 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Starting today, I've noticed that 3 of my rules fire in situations where
they should not. They are simple meta rules that count how many rule,
against certain URIBL rules, fire. They then raise the spam score.
meta LW_URIBL_LO ((URIBL_BLACK + URIBL_RED + URIBL_SBL + URIBL_AB_SURBL
+ URIBL_JP_SURBL + URIBL_OB_SURBL + URIBL_PH_SURBL + URIBL_SC_SURBL +
URIBL_WS_SURBL) == 1)
URIBL_RHS_DOB is missing here.
meta LW_URIBL_MD ((URIBL_BLACK + URIBL_RED + URIBL_SBL + URIBL_AB_SURBL
+ URIBL_JP_SURBL + URIBL_OB_SURBL + URIBL_PH_SURBL + URIBL_SC_SURBL +
URIBL_WS_SURBL + URIBL_RHS_DOB) == 2)
meta LW_URIBL_HI [...]
I'm receiving e-mails where both LW_URIBL_LO and LW_URIBL_MD are fired.
That would happen, if URIBL_RHS_DOB and another rule of the LO meta
variant are hit.
The only rule in the message that could trigger them are URIBL_DBL_SPAM
and URIBL_RHS_DOB
DBL is not part of the meta, so I don't get this. Or did you actually
mean to communicate, these are the only URI DNSBL rules triggered? That
would be even more confusing -- a real Status header copied would have
helped...
The above rules are *verbatim*, copy and paste from your rc files, with
no human messing around, right?
In a related note, as per the M::SA::Conf docs for meta rules -- "The
value of a hit meta test is that of its arithmetic expression. The value
of a hit eval test is that returned by its method."
The latter means, this style of adding "rules" is not necessarily safe,
since these are eval tests. However, in this case, I believe they all
should be set to 1 in case of a match.
The former means, you could eliminate such issues due to inconsistencies
and code duplication, by using an additional meta level:
meta __VALUE FOO + BAR
meta ONE __VALUE == 1
meta TWO __VALUE == 2
Hi Karsten,
I don't know how I overlooked that omission in the first rule :)
Thanks, it's working as expected now.
I designed the rules using the information available on
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules
Under "Meta rules"
It has this rule
meta LOCAL_MULTIPLE_TESTS (( __LOCAL_TEST1 + __LOCAL_TEST2 +
__LOCAL_TEST3) > 1)
"The value of the sub rule in an arithmetic meta rule is the true/false
(1/0) value for whether or not the rule hit. "
If this is incorrect, perhaps this documentation should be updated.
Regards,
Lawrence
