You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by "Eric A. Hall" <eh...@ehsco.com> on 2007/08/11 02:32:28 UTC
some of you have bad meta rules...
noticed this in the debug output while upgrading
[10637] dbg: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined dependency
'DCC_CHECK'
[10637] info: rules: meta test FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 has dependency
'FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D' with a zero score
[10637] info: rules: meta test FM_SEX_HOSTDDDD has dependency
'FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D' with a zero score
[10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has undefined dependency
'SARE_RD_SAFE_MKSHRT'
[10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has undefined dependency
'SARE_RD_SAFE_GT'
[10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has undefined dependency
'SARE_RD_SAFE_TINY'
[10637] info: rules: meta test HS_PHARMA_1 has dependency
'HS_SUBJ_ONLINE_PHARMACEUTICAL' with a zero score
[10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
'SARE_XMAIL_SUSP2'
[10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
'SARE_HEAD_XAUTH_WARN'
[10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
'X_AUTH_WARN_FAKED'
don't feel bad, I had some broken ones myself :)
--lint probably ought to be extended to catch meta rules btw
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: some of you have bad meta rules...
Posted by Jari Fredriksson <ja...@iki.fi>.
> On Friday 10 August 2007, Loren Wilton wrote:
>>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has
>>> undefined dependency 'SARE_RD_SAFE_MKSHRT'
>>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has
>>> undefined dependency 'SARE_RD_SAFE_GT'
>>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has
>>> undefined dependency 'SARE_RD_SAFE_TINY'
>>> [10637] info: rules: meta test HS_PHARMA_1 has
>>> dependency 'HS_SUBJ_ONLINE_PHARMACEUTICAL' with a zero
>>> score [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND
>>> has undefined dependency 'SARE_XMAIL_SUSP2'
>>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has
>>> undefined dependency 'SARE_HEAD_XAUTH_WARN'
>>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has
>>> undefined dependency 'X_AUTH_WARN_FAKED'
>>
>
> I'm getting some of those too Loren, since the 3.2.3
> update a couple of days ago, done by smart.
Same list here, 3.2.3 via cpan, sa-updated & sa-compiled.
Re: some of you have bad meta rules...
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
>>Unless all of those SARE rules chain back to standard SA rules that have
>>been removed, it may indicate that you have a higher-numbered part of one
>>of
>>the multi-part rule sets, and don't have the lower-numbered parts. In
>>many
>>cases there are base rules in the .0 or .1 files that are used by
>>higher-numbered files in the same set.
>
> I'm getting some of those too Loren, since the 3.2.3 update a couple of
> days
> ago, done by smart.
Ok. Sounds like they removed some base rules we were depending on. Maybe
time to remove those rules based on them, or recreate the base rules as our
own.
Loren
Re: some of you have bad meta rules...
Posted by Gene Heskett <ge...@verizon.net>.
On Friday 10 August 2007, Loren Wilton wrote:
>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has undefined dependency
>> 'SARE_RD_SAFE_MKSHRT'
>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has undefined dependency
>> 'SARE_RD_SAFE_GT'
>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has undefined dependency
>> 'SARE_RD_SAFE_TINY'
>> [10637] info: rules: meta test HS_PHARMA_1 has dependency
>> 'HS_SUBJ_ONLINE_PHARMACEUTICAL' with a zero score
>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
>> 'SARE_XMAIL_SUSP2'
>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
>> 'SARE_HEAD_XAUTH_WARN'
>> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
>> 'X_AUTH_WARN_FAKED'
>
>Unless all of those SARE rules chain back to standard SA rules that have
>been removed, it may indicate that you have a higher-numbered part of one of
>the multi-part rule sets, and don't have the lower-numbered parts. In many
>cases there are base rules in the .0 or .1 files that are used by
>higher-numbered files in the same set.
>
> Loren
I'm getting some of those too Loren, since the 3.2.3 update a couple of days
ago, done by smart.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Meade's Maxim:
Always remember that you are absolutely unique, just like everyone else.
Re: some of you have bad meta rules...
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has undefined dependency
> 'SARE_RD_SAFE_MKSHRT'
> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has undefined dependency
> 'SARE_RD_SAFE_GT'
> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_RD_SAFE has undefined dependency
> 'SARE_RD_SAFE_TINY'
> [10637] info: rules: meta test HS_PHARMA_1 has dependency
> 'HS_SUBJ_ONLINE_PHARMACEUTICAL' with a zero score
> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
> 'SARE_XMAIL_SUSP2'
> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
> 'SARE_HEAD_XAUTH_WARN'
> [10637] dbg: rules: meta test SARE_HEAD_SUBJ_RAND has undefined dependency
> 'X_AUTH_WARN_FAKED'
Unless all of those SARE rules chain back to standard SA rules that have
been removed, it may indicate that you have a higher-numbered part of one of
the multi-part rule sets, and don't have the lower-numbered parts. In many
cases there are base rules in the .0 or .1 files that are used by
higher-numbered files in the same set.
Loren