You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org by Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org> on 2022/11/04 16:21:34 UTC
Can someone explain what happened to my rules?
I recently added multiple rules to my sandbox (in 80test.cf) and tweaked
them over the space of a few weeks, including renaming some to remove
the leading 'T_'
And QA seems to not see all of them and is showing hits on both the test
and non-test versions. Example:
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20221103-r1905040-n&rule=%2FSCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2
I'm *GUESSING* that some testers don't regularly update their rules or
something like that. However, there are other rules
(__SCC_HASHBUST_{1..3,6}) that have seemingly just vanished.
I've waited for ~3 weeks for this to all shake out, but it hasn't.
Re: Can someone explain what happened to my rules?
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
That sounds like rule promotion might be broken.
I also think most of the mass check and rule QA system is tied to version
3.4 and it should probably get re-jiggered for 4.0.
Can you open a bug
KAM
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 22:02 Bill Cole <
saruleqa-20221024@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 at 12:48:00 UTC-0400 (Fri, 4 Nov 2022 09:48:00 -0700)
> Kevin A. McGrail <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > Are your rules still in the sandbox? They're just not getting
> > promoted?
>
> Everything is still in the sandbox. Some rules in the same file have
> made it into the default rules. Some made it with a T_ name (e.g.
> T_SCC_BOGUS_CTE_1 and T_SCC_CTMPP) some time back but the new names
> haven't appeared in the ruleset or on the RuleQA.
>
> Interesting that SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 is in the sandbox file, appears as
> both SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 and T_SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 in RuleQA, but neither
> form is in the distributed ruleset.
>
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 09:21 Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I recently added multiple rules to my sandbox (in 80test.cf) and
> >> tweaked
> >> them over the space of a few weeks, including renaming some to remove
> >> the leading 'T_'
> >>
> >> And QA seems to not see all of them and is showing hits on both the
> >> test
> >> and non-test versions. Example:
> >>
> >>
> https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20221103-r1905040-n&rule=%2FSCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2
> >>
> >> I'm *GUESSING* that some testers don't regularly update their rules
> >> or
> >> something like that. However, there are other rules
> >> (__SCC_HASHBUST_{1..3,6}) that have seemingly just vanished.
> >>
> >> I've waited for ~3 weeks for this to all shake out, but it hasn't.
> >>
>
>
> --
> Bill Cole
> bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
> (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
> Not Currently Available For Hire
>
Re: Can someone explain what happened to my rules?
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
That sounds like rule promotion might be broken.
I also think most of the mass check and rule QA system is tied to version
3.4 and it should probably get re-jiggered for 4.0.
Can you open a bug
KAM
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 22:02 Bill Cole <
saruleqa-20221024@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> On 2022-11-04 at 12:48:00 UTC-0400 (Fri, 4 Nov 2022 09:48:00 -0700)
> Kevin A. McGrail <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > Are your rules still in the sandbox? They're just not getting
> > promoted?
>
> Everything is still in the sandbox. Some rules in the same file have
> made it into the default rules. Some made it with a T_ name (e.g.
> T_SCC_BOGUS_CTE_1 and T_SCC_CTMPP) some time back but the new names
> haven't appeared in the ruleset or on the RuleQA.
>
> Interesting that SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 is in the sandbox file, appears as
> both SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 and T_SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 in RuleQA, but neither
> form is in the distributed ruleset.
>
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 09:21 Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I recently added multiple rules to my sandbox (in 80test.cf) and
> >> tweaked
> >> them over the space of a few weeks, including renaming some to remove
> >> the leading 'T_'
> >>
> >> And QA seems to not see all of them and is showing hits on both the
> >> test
> >> and non-test versions. Example:
> >>
> >>
> https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20221103-r1905040-n&rule=%2FSCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2
> >>
> >> I'm *GUESSING* that some testers don't regularly update their rules
> >> or
> >> something like that. However, there are other rules
> >> (__SCC_HASHBUST_{1..3,6}) that have seemingly just vanished.
> >>
> >> I've waited for ~3 weeks for this to all shake out, but it hasn't.
> >>
>
>
> --
> Bill Cole
> bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
> (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
> Not Currently Available For Hire
>
Re: Can someone explain what happened to my rules?
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2022-11-04 at 12:48:00 UTC-0400 (Fri, 4 Nov 2022 09:48:00 -0700)
Kevin A. McGrail <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> Are your rules still in the sandbox? They're just not getting
> promoted?
Everything is still in the sandbox. Some rules in the same file have
made it into the default rules. Some made it with a T_ name (e.g.
T_SCC_BOGUS_CTE_1 and T_SCC_CTMPP) some time back but the new names
haven't appeared in the ruleset or on the RuleQA.
Interesting that SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 is in the sandbox file, appears as
both SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 and T_SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 in RuleQA, but neither
form is in the distributed ruleset.
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 09:21 Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I recently added multiple rules to my sandbox (in 80test.cf) and
>> tweaked
>> them over the space of a few weeks, including renaming some to remove
>> the leading 'T_'
>>
>> And QA seems to not see all of them and is showing hits on both the
>> test
>> and non-test versions. Example:
>>
>> https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20221103-r1905040-n&rule=%2FSCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2
>>
>> I'm *GUESSING* that some testers don't regularly update their rules
>> or
>> something like that. However, there are other rules
>> (__SCC_HASHBUST_{1..3,6}) that have seemingly just vanished.
>>
>> I've waited for ~3 weeks for this to all shake out, but it hasn't.
>>
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: Can someone explain what happened to my rules?
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
Are your rules still in the sandbox? They're just not getting promoted?
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 09:21 Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
> I recently added multiple rules to my sandbox (in 80test.cf) and tweaked
> them over the space of a few weeks, including renaming some to remove
> the leading 'T_'
>
> And QA seems to not see all of them and is showing hits on both the test
> and non-test versions. Example:
>
> https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20221103-r1905040-n&rule=%2FSCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2
>
> I'm *GUESSING* that some testers don't regularly update their rules or
> something like that. However, there are other rules
> (__SCC_HASHBUST_{1..3,6}) that have seemingly just vanished.
>
> I've waited for ~3 weeks for this to all shake out, but it hasn't.
>
Re: Can someone explain what happened to my rules?
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
Are your rules still in the sandbox? They're just not getting promoted?
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 09:21 Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
> I recently added multiple rules to my sandbox (in 80test.cf) and tweaked
> them over the space of a few weeks, including renaming some to remove
> the leading 'T_'
>
> And QA seems to not see all of them and is showing hits on both the test
> and non-test versions. Example:
>
> https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20221103-r1905040-n&rule=%2FSCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2
>
> I'm *GUESSING* that some testers don't regularly update their rules or
> something like that. However, there are other rules
> (__SCC_HASHBUST_{1..3,6}) that have seemingly just vanished.
>
> I've waited for ~3 weeks for this to all shake out, but it hasn't.
>