Re: KAM contrib rules and v3.4 svn

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

On 5/19/2013 8:00 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been using Kevin's KAM.cf contrib rules from pccc.com for quite
> some time with v3.4., but now that I'm migrating to v3.4 svn, I'm
> finding a number of unresolved dependencies, and wondered if anyone
> else is using these rules or can explain what I'm missing? I was also
> surprised to see rules like RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL no longer exist with
> v3.4? There are otherwise a number of rules that were performing well
> for me but are now failing.
>
> http://www.pccc.com/downloads/SpamAssassin/contrib/KAM.cf
>
> rules: meta test KAM_BBB has undefined dependency 'KAM_RAPTOR'
> rules: meta test KAM_CARD has undefined dependency 'KAM_RPTR_SUSPECT'
This is a rule only suitable for our servers.  It's an expected issue.  
The overall meta using these rules is more effective for us but still 
effective for others.
> rules: meta test KAM_BLANK02 has undefined dependency 'MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID'
> rules: meta test KAM_BLANK01 has undefined dependency 'UNDISC_RECIPS'
> rules: meta test KAM_BLANK01 has undefined dependency 'FM_NO_FROM_OR_TO'
> rules: meta test KAM_BLANK01 has undefined dependency 'FM_NO_TO'
These is encapsulated in a check for if (version < 3.200000) however the 
dependency check doesn't recognize if loops. I believe there is a bug 
about this but it's an expected issues
> rules: meta test KAM_WEIGHT2 has undefined dependency '__KAM_WEIGHT3_1'
I've disabled this rule. It looks like I started and never finished it.
> rules: meta test KAM_NOTIFY2 has undefined dependency 'KAM_IFRAME'
This is already encapsulated.  Expected issue as with the BLANK errors 
above.
> rules: meta test KAM_ADWORD has undefined dependency 'KAM_RPTR_SUSPECT'
> rules: meta test KAM_ADWORD has undefined dependency 'KAM_RPTR_FAILED'
I've made this a KAMONLY encapsulated rule.  It's not useful outside our 
network.
> rules: meta test KAM_PHISH2 has undefined dependency 'KAM_FAKERBL'
This is a rule only suitable for our servers.  It's an expected issue.  
The overall meta using these rules is more effective for us but still 
effective for others.
> I'd really appreciate if someone could help me locate the missing
> rules or help me figure out if they're duplicated in other v3.4 core
> rules now.
Overall there is no way to get 100% no dependency issues using my rule 
file but overall, it should be encapsulated so you won't actually have 
real issues.
> Maybe this should be directed to the dev list?
Probably, yes.  Switched to dev.

regards,
KAM

Re: KAM contrib rules and v3.4 svn

[Alex <my...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

>> Thanks for the clarification. Do you know why hostkarma was pulled from
>> v3.4? I had it scored low with v3.2 because it wasn't performing as well as
>> it used to, but I thought it still had some utility? Thanks, Alex
>
> Bug 6212 has the info.  Overall, I think they just didn't meet the
> statistical quality we were looking for but RBLs can wax and wane. Do you
> believe it has improved?

No, not really. I've continued using it (and the whitelist) with
adjusted scores, and it seems to be performing okay, but I'll probably
remove them with my v3.4 installs now.

Thanks,
Alex

Re: KAM contrib rules and v3.4 svn

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

On 5/20/2013 10:41 PM, Alex wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. Do you know why hostkarma was pulled 
> from v3.4? I had it scored low with v3.2 because it wasn't performing 
> as well as it used to, but I thought it still had some utility? 
> Thanks, Alex 

Bug 6212 has the info.  Overall, I think they just didn't meet the 
statistical quality we were looking for but RBLs can wax and wane. Do 
you believe it has improved?

Regards,
KAM

Re: KAM contrib rules and v3.4 svn

[Alex <my...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

>> I've been using Kevin's KAM.cf contrib rules from pccc.com for quite
>> some time with v3.4., but now that I'm migrating to v3.4 svn, I'm
>> finding a number of unresolved dependencies, and wondered if anyone
>> else is using these rules or can explain what I'm missing? I was also
>> surprised to see rules like RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL no longer exist with
>> v3.4? There are otherwise a number of rules that were performing well
>> for me but are now failing.
>>
>> http://www.pccc.com/downloads/SpamAssassin/contrib/KAM.cf
>>
>> rules: meta test KAM_BBB has undefined dependency 'KAM_RAPTOR'
>> rules: meta test KAM_CARD has undefined dependency 'KAM_RPTR_SUSPECT'
>
> This is a rule only suitable for our servers.  It's an expected issue.  The
> overall meta using these rules is more effective for us but still effective
> for others.

Thanks for the clarification. Do you know why hostkarma was pulled
from v3.4? I had it scored low with v3.2 because it wasn't performing
as well as it used to, but I thought it still had some utility?

Thanks,
Alex