Missing rules in "Tests performed" docs

[Andrew Daviel <ad...@triumf.ca>]

I was going to try and fill in some holes in the wiki, so that if a user 
sees things like EXTRA_MPART_TYPE or DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE in a mail header 
there's a longer explanation online of what it actually means.

I find that along with a lot of missing Wiki entries, there are also a 
lot of regular entries missing. Including, or course, the 
DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE rule that started me thinking of doing this (yes, I 
see it's been dropped in 3.3.2)

>From http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests.html

tests_2_6x.html vs spamassassin-2.40
Total rules: 847
Real rules: 816 (not counting meta-rule components with "__" prefix)
Found in HTML: 142
Found in wiki: 84 (but no link in the HTML)

tests_3_2_x.html vs. spamassassin-3.2.5
Total rules: 818
Real rules: 789
Found in HTML: 648
Found in wiki: 83


tests_3_3_x.html vs. spamassassin-3.3.1 
Total rules: 896
Real rules: 862
Found in HTML: 619
Found in wiki: 87

tests_3_3_x.html vs spamassassin-3.3.2
Total rules: 818
Real rules: 789
Found in HTML: 567
Found in wiki: 83


My 2.40 rules are probably from an old download; the 3.2 and 3.3.1 rules 
are from the RHEL/CENTOS distribution.

I had assumed the HTML pages were auto-generated from the rulesets, but I 
guess that's not the case.
Is it possible to add the missing entries ?


-- 
Andrew Daviel, TRIUMF, Canada

Re: Missing rules in "Tests performed" docs

[Andrew Daviel <ad...@triumf.ca>]

On Mon, 14 May 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> As much as I apprecate all your wiki entries, I worry about the long-term 
> maintainability of this AND whether your talents are better suited to other 
> tasks.
>
> For example, what about just adding a wiki url to the rules that need a 
> longer description than the current describe provides rather than try and 
> have a page for every rule?

Yes, that probably makes more sense. I just got on a roll a couple of 
days.

As a user of the ruleset document I found it very annoying that most of 
the Wiki links were broken, which suggests to a casual visitor that all 
of them are broken. I wanted to point someone to the ruleset page to 
explain why their mail to me had been ignored (filed under spam), and 
having a broken link against most of the rules in question made it 
impossible.

The rulset document really needs to be generated cleanly so that
only valid Wiki pages have a link.

Incidentally, it seems that all the "meta" rules are missing from the 
auto-generated rulset page. It's reasonable to hide the sub-components, 
but not the rules that appear in tagged mail headers.



-- 
Andrew Daviel, TRIUMF, Canada

Re: Missing rules in "Tests performed" docs

["Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>]

On 4/16/2012 10:08 PM, Andrew Daviel wrote:
> I was going to try and fill in some holes in the wiki, so that if a 
> user sees things like EXTRA_MPART_TYPE or DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE in a mail 
> header there's a longer explanation online of what it actually means.
>
> I find that along with a lot of missing Wiki entries, there are also a 
> lot of regular entries missing. Including, or course, the 
> DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE rule that started me thinking of doing this (yes, I 
> see it's been dropped in 3.3.2) 

As much as I apprecate all your wiki entries, I worry about the 
long-term maintainability of this AND whether your talents are better 
suited to other tasks.

For example, what about just adding a wiki url to the rules that need a 
longer description than the current describe provides rather than try 
and have a page for every rule?

regards,
KAM