You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Yet Another Ninja <sa...@alexb.ch> on 2010/02/01 22:33:51 UTC
90_2tld.cf / / 90_3tld.cf
For those using SA 3.3.x I've split the tld files :
SA > 3.3.x ONLY!
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/90_3tld.cf
SA > 3.2.4
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/90_2tld.cf
SA 3.3.x users will require both files.
- If someone knows how to put these two rule sets in one file and
"activate" according to SA version, pls let me know... I'm stumped.
- If someone thinks this should be added to mainstream SA, collect votes
and submit a bug.
enjoy
Re: 90_2tld.cf / / 90_3tld.cf
Posted by Yet Another Ninja <sa...@alexb.ch>.
On 2/2/2010 1:03 PM, Randal, Phil wrote:
> There's an extraneous linebreak or two in there:
>
> #
>
> SA > 3.3.0
> if (version >= 3.003000)
SA > 3.3.0 was missing a comment...
fixed
thx
RE: 90_2tld.cf / / 90_3tld.cf
Posted by "Randal, Phil" <pr...@herefordshire.gov.uk>.
There's an extraneous linebreak or two in there:
#
SA > 3.3.0
if (version >= 3.003000)
Cheers,
Phil
--
Phil Randal | Networks Engineer
NHS Herefordshire & Herefordshire Council | Deputy Chief Executive's Office | I.C.T. Services Division
Thorn Office Centre, Rotherwas, Hereford, HR2 6JT
Tel: 01432 260160
email: prandal@herefordshire.gov.uk
Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Herefordshire Council.
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Yet Another Ninja [mailto:sa-list@alexb.ch]
Sent: 02 February 2010 11:27
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: 90_2tld.cf / / 90_3tld.cf
On 2/1/2010 10:50 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 22:33 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> - If someone knows how to put these two rule sets in one file and
>> "activate" according to SA version, pls let me know... I'm stumped.
>
> Preprocessing Options [1] in the SA Conf documentation. :)
>
> if (version >= 3.003000)
> # util_rb_3tld blob goes here
> endif
>
> Hmm, doesn't mention >= specifically. Guess it's supported, though,
> otherwise you'd need a minor hack like > 3.002999.
>
> guenther
>
>
> [1]
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.h
> tml#preprocessing_options
Thanks for the hint.
I've updated http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/90_2tld.cf to check for version.
Should be visible as soon as SARE mirrors are in sync.
Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Herefordshire Council.
You should be aware that Herefordshire Council monitors its email service.
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it.
Re: 90_2tld.cf / / 90_3tld.cf
Posted by Yet Another Ninja <sa...@alexb.ch>.
On 2/1/2010 10:50 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 22:33 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> - If someone knows how to put these two rule sets in one file and
>> "activate" according to SA version, pls let me know... I'm stumped.
>
> Preprocessing Options [1] in the SA Conf documentation. :)
>
> if (version >= 3.003000)
> # util_rb_3tld blob goes here
> endif
>
> Hmm, doesn't mention >= specifically. Guess it's supported, though,
> otherwise you'd need a minor hack like > 3.002999.
>
> guenther
>
>
> [1] http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html#preprocessing_options
Thanks for the hint.
I've updated http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/90_2tld.cf to check for
version.
Should be visible as soon as SARE mirrors are in sync.
Re: 90_2tld.cf / / 90_3tld.cf
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
On 01/02/2010 6:51 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> The DNS entries for this channel lack version noting as well:
People shouldn't be just adding channels at whim. They should read the
documentation. If they try to use a channel that's not going to work
sa-update won't install the update. If they don't bother to check that
it works right the first time... well, they're probably going to do
something dumb eventually anyway.
> $ host -t txt 0.0.2.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
> 0.2.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net descriptive text "200912211500"
>
> So it's apparently okay to use that channel for SA version 2.0.0...
These rules won't work of course, but some of the other channels could
be used for 2.xx, I suppose, if you hacked sa-update to work with 2.xx
or wrote your own 2.xx version. I don't know why you'd want to anymore
or why we're concerned that somebody might and that a particular ruleset
won't work for them.
> This is easily solved by changing the wildcard entry in BIND (assuming
> you're using BIND), e.g.
No, not really...
> 4.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
> 5.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
> 6.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
> *.3.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
> *.4.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
...that requires manually intervention in a currently completely
automated process. I don't see the value add for adding in the time and
delay of the manual intervention. Quite simply, don't add channels that
don't work for your version of SA, or if you do, sa-update is not going
to install them anyway.
BTW, a much easier way to do this sort of stuff if we wanted to that
would not require changes if, say, we released a 3.2.7, would be
exclude, rather than include, versions (not tested, subject to typos):
*.1.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN A 127.0.0.1
0.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN A 127.0.0.1
1.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN A 127.0.0.1
2.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN A 127.0.0.1
3.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN A 127.0.0.1
*.*.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
Daryl
Re: 90_2tld.cf / / 90_3tld.cf
Posted by Adam Katz <an...@khopis.com>.
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 22:33 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> - If someone knows how to put these two rule sets in one file and
>> "activate" according to SA version, pls let me know... I'm stumped.
>
> Preprocessing Options [1] in the SA Conf documentation. :)
>
> if (version >= 3.003000)
> # util_rb_3tld blob goes here
> endif
>
> Hmm, doesn't mention >= specifically. Guess it's supported, though,
> otherwise you'd need a minor hack like > 3.002999.
Yes, please implement that within the same channel so as to limit the
need for admins to edit their channel list files.
The DNS entries for this channel lack version noting as well:
$ host -t txt 0.0.2.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
0.2.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net descriptive text "200912211500"
So it's apparently okay to use that channel for SA version 2.0.0...
This is easily solved by changing the wildcard entry in BIND (assuming
you're using BIND), e.g.
4.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
5.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
6.2.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
*.3.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
*.4.3.90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update IN TXT "200912211500"
That should cover the future revisions 3.2.6 and 3.4.x in addition to
the current (new) 3.3.x branch and the two valid previous releases of
3.2.4 and 3.2.5. (I don't think BIND supports other globs.) Surely
this shouldn't be hard to add to your publish script...
It also has the added advantage of preventing future use of a horribly
stale channel e.g. when 3.5.0 comes out. Just write yourself a note
that you'll need to update the publishing script or else suffer the
complaints. ;-)
Re: 90_2tld.cf / / 90_3tld.cf
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 22:33 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> - If someone knows how to put these two rule sets in one file and
> "activate" according to SA version, pls let me know... I'm stumped.
Preprocessing Options [1] in the SA Conf documentation. :)
if (version >= 3.003000)
# util_rb_3tld blob goes here
endif
Hmm, doesn't mention >= specifically. Guess it's supported, though,
otherwise you'd need a minor hack like > 3.002999.
guenther
[1] http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html#preprocessing_options
> enjoy
Thanks!
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}