You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@issues.apache.org on 2011/01/17 10:20:04 UTC
[Bug 6533] Rule FSL_RU_URL hits valid mails
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6533
--- Comment #1 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-01-17 04:20:01 UTC ---
This is indeed a serious issue.
svn commit: r1025769 -
/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/maddoc/99_fsl_testing.cf
This was added to trunk in on October 20th, 2010
I guess this confirms that we do indeed have auto-promotion of rules from trunk
to the 3.3.x sa-update channel. It seems this point isn't clear to committers
and thus mistakes are being made. I sincerely hope the PMC can generally
clarify the current processes so easy to understand procedures can be written
down.
Mistakes
========
If I understand this situation correctly, here are a few of the mistakes...
1) Lack of clear understanding by committers of how rules are auto-promoted.
2) Lack of clear understanding by committers that the scores written in sandbox
files are IGNORED by the scoring mechanism. This is obviously a "prejudiced"
rule that works great for many users but is wrong for others. Indeed maddoc
knew this, thus he committed a score of 0.01 to the sandbox with the intent of
making it informational only.
3) Lack of clear understanding by committers that such "prejudiced" rules
should never be committed to the sandbox without "tflags nopublish".
4) Our nightly masscheck corpora is apparently devoid of Russian ham, which
would have caused this rule to fail auto-promotion.
Questions for PMC
=================
1) I have been asked to not make changes to other people's sandboxes. But
should I avoid doing so if the change is obviously correct like in this
instance?
2) Do we have a mechanism to force a sa-update push? Bug #6365 seems to
indicate that we don't yet.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: [Bug 6533] Rule FSL_RU_URL hits valid mails
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
> What about this issue? How do we force a sa-update push? I'm guessing it
> is a matter of logging into zones and manually running a script?
regarding this -- I'm a little out of the loop and can't say for sure. That bug
seems to suggest that the script should work, but it's been a while since
I've looked into it.
--j.
Re: [Bug 6533] Rule FSL_RU_URL hits valid mails
Posted by Doc Schneider <ma...@maddoc.net>.
I had my rule set for a score of 0.01 but due to the lack of valid
Russian ham it got the high score.
So I added the tflags nopublish to it.
I'm also +1 on adding that to the wiki.
-Doc
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> +1 here as well with the sandbox clarification. I'll add that to the wiki.
> Regards,
> KAM
>
> "Justin Mason" <jm...@jmason.org> wrote:
>
>> "tflags nopublish" gets my vote.
>>
>> --j.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:02, Warren Togami Jr. <wt...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/16/2011 11:52 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>> BTW, I am entirely in favour of changing other people's sandbox
>> rules,
>>>> if they are making it into production, haven't been touched in
>> several
>>>> months and are likely unmaintained. Â (It might be friendly to mail
>>>> them to notify that you're making the change, however, but that's up
>>>> to you, ymmv.)
>>>>
>>>> --j.
>>> In this case, do you feel nopublish or 73_sandbox_manual_scores.cf
>> would be
>>> better? Â During 2009 I had a similar prejudiced rule against .cn
>> URI's. Â I
>>> felt it was inappropriate to push it even as informational in
>> production so
>>> I made it nopublish.
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
>>> What about this issue? Â How do we force a sa-update push? Â I'm
>> guessing it
>>> is a matter of logging into zones and manually running a script?
>>>
>>> Warren
>>>
--
-Doc Schneider Lincoln, NE.
Penguins: Do it on the ice.
Cairns: Do it underground
Re: [Bug 6533] Rule FSL_RU_URL hits valid mails
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
+1 here as well with the sandbox clarification. I'll add that to the wiki.
Regards,
KAM
"Justin Mason" <jm...@jmason.org> wrote:
>"tflags nopublish" gets my vote.
>
>--j.
>
>On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:02, Warren Togami Jr. <wt...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On 01/16/2011 11:52 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, I am entirely in favour of changing other people's sandbox
>rules,
>>> if they are making it into production, haven't been touched in
>several
>>> months and are likely unmaintained. (It might be friendly to mail
>>> them to notify that you're making the change, however, but that's up
>>> to you, ymmv.)
>>>
>>> --j.
>>
>> In this case, do you feel nopublish or 73_sandbox_manual_scores.cf
>would be
>> better? During 2009 I had a similar prejudiced rule against .cn
>URI's. I
>> felt it was inappropriate to push it even as informational in
>production so
>> I made it nopublish.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
>> What about this issue? How do we force a sa-update push? I'm
>guessing it
>> is a matter of logging into zones and manually running a script?
>>
>> Warren
>>
Re: [Bug 6533] Rule FSL_RU_URL hits valid mails
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
"tflags nopublish" gets my vote.
--j.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:02, Warren Togami Jr. <wt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/16/2011 11:52 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>> BTW, I am entirely in favour of changing other people's sandbox rules,
>> if they are making it into production, haven't been touched in several
>> months and are likely unmaintained. (It might be friendly to mail
>> them to notify that you're making the change, however, but that's up
>> to you, ymmv.)
>>
>> --j.
>
> In this case, do you feel nopublish or 73_sandbox_manual_scores.cf would be
> better? During 2009 I had a similar prejudiced rule against .cn URI's. I
> felt it was inappropriate to push it even as informational in production so
> I made it nopublish.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
> What about this issue? How do we force a sa-update push? I'm guessing it
> is a matter of logging into zones and manually running a script?
>
> Warren
>
Re: [Bug 6533] Rule FSL_RU_URL hits valid mails
Posted by "Warren Togami Jr." <wt...@gmail.com>.
On 01/16/2011 11:52 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
> BTW, I am entirely in favour of changing other people's sandbox rules,
> if they are making it into production, haven't been touched in several
> months and are likely unmaintained. (It might be friendly to mail
> them to notify that you're making the change, however, but that's up
> to you, ymmv.)
>
> --j.
In this case, do you feel nopublish or 73_sandbox_manual_scores.cf would
be better? During 2009 I had a similar prejudiced rule against .cn
URI's. I felt it was inappropriate to push it even as informational in
production so I made it nopublish.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
What about this issue? How do we force a sa-update push? I'm guessing
it is a matter of logging into zones and manually running a script?
Warren
Re: [Bug 6533] Rule FSL_RU_URL hits valid mails
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
BTW, I am entirely in favour of changing other people's sandbox rules,
if they are making it into production, haven't been touched in several
months and are likely unmaintained. (It might be friendly to mail
them to notify that you're making the change, however, but that's up
to you, ymmv.)
--j.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:20, <bu...@issues.apache.org> wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6533
>
> --- Comment #1 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-01-17 04:20:01 UTC ---
> This is indeed a serious issue.
>
> svn commit: r1025769 -
> /spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/maddoc/99_fsl_testing.cf
>
> This was added to trunk in on October 20th, 2010
>
> I guess this confirms that we do indeed have auto-promotion of rules from trunk
> to the 3.3.x sa-update channel. It seems this point isn't clear to committers
> and thus mistakes are being made. I sincerely hope the PMC can generally
> clarify the current processes so easy to understand procedures can be written
> down.
>
> Mistakes
> ========
> If I understand this situation correctly, here are a few of the mistakes...
>
> 1) Lack of clear understanding by committers of how rules are auto-promoted.
>
> 2) Lack of clear understanding by committers that the scores written in sandbox
> files are IGNORED by the scoring mechanism. This is obviously a "prejudiced"
> rule that works great for many users but is wrong for others. Indeed maddoc
> knew this, thus he committed a score of 0.01 to the sandbox with the intent of
> making it informational only.
>
> 3) Lack of clear understanding by committers that such "prejudiced" rules
> should never be committed to the sandbox without "tflags nopublish".
>
> 4) Our nightly masscheck corpora is apparently devoid of Russian ham, which
> would have caused this rule to fail auto-promotion.
>
>
> Questions for PMC
> =================
> 1) I have been asked to not make changes to other people's sandboxes. But
> should I avoid doing so if the change is obviously correct like in this
> instance?
>
> 2) Do we have a mechanism to force a sa-update push? Bug #6365 seems to
> indicate that we don't yet.
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug.
>