You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org by Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org> on 2026/02/13 15:57:56 UTC
RuleQA low on fuel…
See the message below. Also related errors reported to both the sysadmins and ruleqa lists for over a week.
At first I thought this was entirely secondary to the DDoS aimed at sa-vm. I did a couple rounds of mass blocking of network ranges doing bad things, but it seems that there is likely also just a lack of masscheck logs coming in.
Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
Forwarded message:
> From: automc@sa-vm.apache.org
> To: sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: checkMasscheckContribs.sh on sa-vm.apache.org - not enough contributors for SVN 1931846
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 15:17:02 +0000 (UTC)
>
> Corpus total: 82, Old: 8, Recent: 38, New: 18
>
> SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
>
> New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
> SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
> 1931846 (Yes) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
> 1931846 (Yes) - spam-jhardin.r1931846.log (Feb 13 10:53)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
> 1931846 (Yes) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-llanga.r1931801.log (Feb 11 17:21)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
> 1931846 (Yes) - spam-giovanni-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
> 1931824 (No) - spam-giovanni-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-giovanni-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
> 1931846 (Yes) - ham-whyscream.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:09)
> 1931846 (Yes) - ham-spamsponge.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
> 1931846 (Yes) - spam-whyscream.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:09)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931801.log (Feb 11 17:21)
> 1931846 (Yes) - ham-giovanni-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
> 1931846 (Yes) - ham-grenier.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
> 1931846 (Yes) - spam-spamsponge.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
> 1931824 (No) - spam-spamsponge.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
> 1931824 (No) - spam-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
> 1931846 (Yes) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
> 1931824 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
> 1931846 (Yes) - spam-giovanni-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-spamsponge.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
> 1931846 (Yes) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-grenier.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-giovanni-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-jhardin.r1931824.log (Feb 12 10:53)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
> 1931846 (Yes) - ham-giovanni-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
> 1931824 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
> 1931846 (Yes) - spam-grenier.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-whyscream.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:09)
> 1931824 (No) - spam-grenier.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
> 1931846 (Yes) - ham-jhardin.r1931846.log (Feb 13 10:53)
> 1931824 (No) - spam-whyscream.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:09)
> 1931824 (No) - spam-giovanni-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
> 1931824 (No) - spam-jhardin.r1931824.log (Feb 12 10:53)
>
> 16/18 matches (8 ham, 8 spam)
>
> WARNING: NOT ENOUGH CONTRIBUTORS, MINIMUM REQUIRED IS 10!!!
>
> Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
> SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week4.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-jhardin.r1931801.log (Feb 11 10:53)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-spamsponge.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:00)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-giovanni-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-ena-week1.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:09)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-spamsponge.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-giovanni-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-jhardin.r1931801.log (Feb 11 10:53)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week1.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-jhardin.r1931743.log (Feb 7 11:01)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-spamsponge.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:00)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week3.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:30)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week0.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:06)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week0.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:06)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week3.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:30)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-spamsponge.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-whyscream.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:12)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-whyscream.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:12)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-whyscream.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:10)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-jhardin.r1931743.log (Feb 7 11:01)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-grenier.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-giovanni-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week4.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-ena-week1.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:09)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-whyscream.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:10)
> 1931801 (No) - spam-giovanni-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
> 1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
> 1931801 (No) - ham-grenier.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week1.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
>
> 20/38 matches (10 ham, 10 spam)
>
> NOTE: Old are probably no longer running automasscheck script.
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Kent Oyer <ke...@mxguardian.net>.
I requested and received rsync credentials awhile back but never got around to setting it up. If someone could help me locate or regenerate those credentials I can start doing nightly mass checks.
Thanks
Kent
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 07:58 AM, Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAUTION: External email from: billcole@apache.org
Use caution before clicking on links or opening attachments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the message below. Also related errors reported to both the sysadmins and ruleqa lists for over a week.
At first I thought this was entirely secondary to the DDoS aimed at sa-vm. I did a couple rounds of mass blocking of network ranges doing bad things, but it seems that there is likely also just a lack of masscheck logs coming in.
Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
Forwarded message:
From: automc@sa-vm.apache.org (mailto:automc@sa-vm.apache.org)
To: sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org (mailto:sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org)
Subject: checkMasscheckContribs.sh on sa-vm.apache.org - not enough contributors for SVN 1931846
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 15:17:02 +0000 (UTC)
Corpus total: 82, Old: 8, Recent: 38, New: 18
SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-jhardin.r1931846.log (Feb 13 10:53)
1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
1931801 (No) - spam-llanga.r1931801.log (Feb 11 17:21)
1931824 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-giovanni-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
1931824 (No) - spam-giovanni-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
1931824 (No) - ham-giovanni-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-whyscream.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:09)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-spamsponge.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-whyscream.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:09)
1931801 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931801.log (Feb 11 17:21)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-giovanni-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-grenier.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-spamsponge.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
1931824 (No) - spam-spamsponge.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
1931824 (No) - spam-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
1931824 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-giovanni-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
1931824 (No) - ham-spamsponge.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
1931824 (No) - ham-grenier.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
1931824 (No) - ham-giovanni-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
1931824 (No) - ham-jhardin.r1931824.log (Feb 12 10:53)
1931824 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-giovanni-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
1931824 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-grenier.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
1931824 (No) - ham-whyscream.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:09)
1931824 (No) - spam-grenier.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-jhardin.r1931846.log (Feb 13 10:53)
1931824 (No) - spam-whyscream.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:09)
1931824 (No) - spam-giovanni-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
1931824 (No) - spam-jhardin.r1931824.log (Feb 12 10:53)
16/18 matches (8 ham, 8 spam)
WARNING: NOT ENOUGH CONTRIBUTORS, MINIMUM REQUIRED IS 10!!!
Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week4.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
1931801 (No) - spam-jhardin.r1931801.log (Feb 11 10:53)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-spamsponge.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:00)
1931801 (No) - ham-giovanni-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
1931801 (No) - spam-ena-week1.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:09)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
1931801 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
1931801 (No) - spam-spamsponge.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
1931801 (No) - ham-giovanni-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
1931801 (No) - ham-jhardin.r1931801.log (Feb 11 10:53)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week1.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-jhardin.r1931743.log (Feb 7 11:01)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-spamsponge.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:00)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week3.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:30)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week0.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:06)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week0.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:06)
1931801 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week3.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:30)
1931801 (No) - ham-spamsponge.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-whyscream.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:12)
1931801 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
1931801 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-whyscream.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:12)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
1931801 (No) - spam-whyscream.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:10)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-jhardin.r1931743.log (Feb 7 11:01)
1931801 (No) - spam-grenier.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
1931801 (No) - spam-giovanni-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week4.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
1931801 (No) - ham-ena-week1.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:09)
1931801 (No) - ham-whyscream.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:10)
1931801 (No) - spam-giovanni-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
1931801 (No) - ham-grenier.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week1.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
20/38 matches (10 ham, 10 spam)
NOTE: Old are probably no longer running automasscheck script.
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2026-02-13 at 14:24:12 UTC-0500 (Fri, 13 Feb 2026 20:24:12 +0100)
Lucian Langa <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
>> Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
>
> could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
> might not be the only one)
It appears that today's was just 20m early. See attached message.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo@toad.social and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2026-02-14 at 14:26:14 UTC-0500 (Sat, 14 Feb 2026 19:26:14 +0000)
Kent Oyer <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> Thanks for clarifying the start & end times. What does no match mean:
> SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date) 1931743 (No) -
> ham-net-koyer.r1931743.log (Feb 14 06:04)
I have not analyzed the script but my deduction from the output is that
"Match" tells whether the SVN rev used for the masscheck matches the
correct version tagged for the rescoring run.
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2026-02-14 at 14:26:14 UTC-0500 (Sat, 14 Feb 2026 19:26:14 +0000)
Kent Oyer <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> Thanks for clarifying the start & end times. What does no match mean:
> SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
> 1931743 (No) - ham-net-koyer.r1931743.log (Feb 14 06:04)
It means that the SVN revision of the rules used for the masscheck isn't
the one that the server wants for its rescore.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo@toad.social and many *@billmail.scconsult.com
addresses)
Please keep discussion mailing list replies *on-list*
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re[2]: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Kent Oyer <ke...@mxguardian.net>.
Thanks for clarifying the start & end times. What does no match mean:
SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date) 1931743 (No) - ham-net-koyer.r1931743.log (Feb 14 06:04)
On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 09:13 AM, Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
NOTE: All times below referring to sa-vm ops are UTC.
On 2026-02-13 at 19:23:55 UTC-0500 (Sat, 14 Feb 2026 00:23:55 +0000)
Kent Oyer <ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org (mailto:ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org)>
is rumored to have said:
I'm also a little confused about the masscheck run time. The docs say
"at or after 9AM UTC". But since this is a daily job, aren't all times
technically after 9AM? (i.e. 6AM is after 9AM the day before).
I think the vagueness is due to everything involved taking a long
time...
"Daily at some time after 0900 UTC" means after 0900 UTC every day. Not
after yesterday's 0900.
Perhaps it would be better to specify a time range. Job needs to start
after X but be finished before Y.
OK, here's an arbitrary unilateral spec: after 0900 UTC, finish by 2300
UTC.
I believe that should work for all cases. Not sure how long the job is
taking for anyone.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 11:24 AM, Lucian Langa
<lucilanga@gnome.eu.org (mailto:lucilanga@gnome.eu.org)> wrote:
Hi Bill,
On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
might not be the only one)
Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
That script runs hourly.
SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
but rev 1931846 was completed on my side at about Feb 13 18:34 CET
(that's 17:34 UTC) so it probably means is was late at least 2 hours.
yet on "in the past week" rev 1031743 seems fine at 17:25 (10 mins
earlier than 13'th run.
Confession: I am NOT expert in how the masscheck/ruleqa system is
scheduled or precisely which cron jobs do what. I just noticed the
chronic failures, coming to sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org (mailto:sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org).
I mean, obviously I can read the automc crontab, but I have not read all
the scripts and don't have a flow diagram in my head. Some scripts tell
lies in their comments...
Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
I must admit never know exactly the time should run my script and to
be
perfectly honest ".. start your run after H hour" doesn't tell a much.
The corpus is variable, the machine running the corpus also a variable
and the day of the week (Sat is slower because of the -net rules).
It would be much clear (at least for me) if I know the time when I
have
to rsync my corpus - say make sure your corpus hits the server by H
hour. That way I can adapt my starting script time with the corpus
size,
machine and the day of the week.
Based on the crontab, which has once-daily jobs starting 01:20-08:37,
along with the existing documentation not giving a deadline, I think a
safe deadline is 23:00.
See the message below. Also related errors reported to both the
sysadmins and ruleqa lists for over a week.
I only got "bad performing rules" mail that doesn't tell much about
submission.
All mail from cron jobs in the automc crontab goes to the sysadmins
list. The nightly rescore (do-stable-update-with-scores) runs some
scripts whose ouput is delivered to ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org (mailto:ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org),
notably with subjects like "[auto] do-nightly-rescore-example return
code 9" where the code varies. They come from "automc Cron
<noreply@spamassassin.apache.org (mailto:noreply@spamassassin.apache.org)>" so it is not a huge leap of
imagination to think that it could be caught by filters. The envelope
sender is a per-user VERP address.
Can we (ruleqa) get the output of this script too and there
was another (I can't remember its name) about the corpus of each
contributor and the minimum threshold, that could be also useful.
See https://lists.apache.org/list?ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org:2026-2 (https://lists.apache.org/list?ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org:2026-2)
for everything sent to the ruleqa list this month and check to make sure
that you are not blocking the messages. See
https://lists.apache.org/list?sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org:2026-2 (https://lists.apache.org/list?sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org:2026-2)
for what is going to the sysadmins list. You may want to subscribe to
both lists. If you can identify something you think needs to be
otherwise directed, we can fix it. However, I think we are *trying* to
send what you want.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com (mailto:bill@scconsult.com) or billcole@apache.org (mailto:billcole@apache.org)
(AKA @grumpybozo@toad.social (mailto:grumpybozo@toad.social) and many *@billmail.scconsult.com
addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
NOTE: All times below referring to sa-vm ops are UTC.
On 2026-02-13 at 19:23:55 UTC-0500 (Sat, 14 Feb 2026 00:23:55 +0000)
Kent Oyer <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> I'm also a little confused about the masscheck run time. The docs say
> "at or after 9AM UTC". But since this is a daily job, aren't all times
> technically after 9AM? (i.e. 6AM is after 9AM the day before).
I think the vagueness is due to everything involved taking a long
time...
"Daily at some time after 0900 UTC" means after 0900 UTC every day. Not
after yesterday's 0900.
> Perhaps it would be better to specify a time range. Job needs to start
> after X but be finished before Y.
OK, here's an arbitrary unilateral spec: after 0900 UTC, finish by 2300
UTC.
I believe that should work for all cases. Not sure how long the job is
taking for anyone.
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 11:24 AM, Lucian Langa
> <lu...@gnome.eu.org> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
> Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
>
> could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
> might not be the only one)
>
> Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
That script runs hourly.
> SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
>
> New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
> SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
> 1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
>
> but rev 1931846 was completed on my side at about Feb 13 18:34 CET
> (that's 17:34 UTC) so it probably means is was late at least 2 hours.
>
> yet on "in the past week" rev 1031743 seems fine at 17:25 (10 mins
> earlier than 13'th run.
Confession: I am NOT expert in how the masscheck/ruleqa system is
scheduled or precisely which cron jobs do what. I just noticed the
chronic failures, coming to sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org.
I mean, obviously I can read the automc crontab, but I have not read all
the scripts and don't have a flow diagram in my head. Some scripts tell
lies in their comments...
> Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
> SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
>
> I must admit never know exactly the time should run my script and to
> be
> perfectly honest ".. start your run after H hour" doesn't tell a much.
> The corpus is variable, the machine running the corpus also a variable
> and the day of the week (Sat is slower because of the -net rules).
>
> It would be much clear (at least for me) if I know the time when I
> have
> to rsync my corpus - say make sure your corpus hits the server by H
> hour. That way I can adapt my starting script time with the corpus
> size,
> machine and the day of the week.
Based on the crontab, which has once-daily jobs starting 01:20-08:37,
along with the existing documentation not giving a deadline, I think a
safe deadline is 23:00.
> See the message below. Also related errors reported to both the
> sysadmins and ruleqa lists for over a week.
>
> I only got "bad performing rules" mail that doesn't tell much about
> submission.
All mail from cron jobs in the automc crontab goes to the sysadmins
list. The nightly rescore (do-stable-update-with-scores) runs some
scripts whose ouput is delivered to ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org,
notably with subjects like "[auto] do-nightly-rescore-example return
code 9" where the code varies. They come from "automc Cron
<no...@spamassassin.apache.org>" so it is not a huge leap of
imagination to think that it could be caught by filters. The envelope
sender is a per-user VERP address.
> Can we (ruleqa) get the output of this script too and there
> was another (I can't remember its name) about the corpus of each
> contributor and the minimum threshold, that could be also useful.
See https://lists.apache.org/list?ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org:2026-2
for everything sent to the ruleqa list this month and check to make sure
that you are not blocking the messages. See
https://lists.apache.org/list?sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org:2026-2
for what is going to the sysadmins list. You may want to subscribe to
both lists. If you can identify something you think needs to be
otherwise directed, we can fix it. However, I think we are *trying* to
send what you want.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo@toad.social and many *@billmail.scconsult.com
addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re[3]: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Tobi <ja...@gmx.ch>.
Bill,
I checked rulesqa and saw that my submission is not there anymore :-( No
idea what my masschecks has as issues. Will check with high Prio after
btk Tomorrow
Cheers
Tobi
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von "Kent Oyer" <ke...@mxguardian.net>
An ruleqa@spamassassin.apache.org; lucilanga@gnome.eu.org
Datum 14.02.2026 01:23:55
Betreff Re[2]: RuleQA low on fuel…
>I'm also a little confused about the masscheck run time. The docs say
>"at or after 9AM UTC". But since this is a daily job, aren't all times
>technically after 9AM? (i.e. 6AM is after 9AM the day before). Perhaps
>it would be better to specify a time range. Job needs to start after X
>but be finished before Y.
>
>
>On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 11:24 AM, Lucian Langa <lu...@gnome.eu.org>
>wrote:
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>CAUTION: External email from: lucilanga@gnome.eu.org
>>Use caution before clicking on links or opening attachments.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
>>>Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
>>
>>
>>could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
>>might not be the only one)
>>
>>Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
>>
>>>>SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
>>>>
>>>>New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
>>>>SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
>>>>1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
>>
>>
>>but rev 1931846 was completed on my side at about Feb 13 18:34 CET
>>(that's 17:34 UTC) so it probably means is was late at least 2 hours.
>>
>>yet on "in the past week" rev 1031743 seems fine at 17:25 (10 mins
>>earlier than 13'th run.
>>
>>>>Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
>>>>SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
>>>>1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
>>
>>
>>I must admit never know exactly the time should run my script and to
>>be
>>perfectly honest ".. start your run after H hour" doesn't tell a much.
>>The corpus is variable, the machine running the corpus also a variable
>>and the day of the week (Sat is slower because of the -net rules).
>>
>>It would be much clear (at least for me) if I know the time when I
>>have
>>to rsync my corpus - say make sure your corpus hits the server by H
>>hour. That way I can adapt my starting script time with the corpus
>>size,
>>machine and the day of the week.
>>
>>>See the message below. Also related errors reported to both the
>>>sysadmins and ruleqa lists for over a week.
>>
>>
>>I only got "bad performing rules" mail that doesn't tell much about
>>submission.
>>Can we (ruleqa) get the output of this script too and there
>>was another (I can't remember its name) about the corpus of each
>>contributor and the minimum threshold, that could be also useful.
>>
>>--
>>Cheers,
>>--lucian
Re[2]: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Kent Oyer <ke...@mxguardian.net>.
I'm also a little confused about the masscheck run time. The docs say "at or after 9AM UTC". But since this is a daily job, aren't all times technically after 9AM? (i.e. 6AM is after 9AM the day before). Perhaps it would be better to specify a time range. Job needs to start after X but be finished before Y.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 11:24 AM, Lucian Langa <lu...@gnome.eu.org> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAUTION: External email from: lucilanga@gnome.eu.org (mailto:lucilanga@gnome.eu.org)
Use caution before clicking on links or opening attachments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bill,
On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
might not be the only one)
Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
but rev 1931846 was completed on my side at about Feb 13 18:34 CET
(that's 17:34 UTC) so it probably means is was late at least 2 hours.
yet on "in the past week" rev 1031743 seems fine at 17:25 (10 mins
earlier than 13'th run.
Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
I must admit never know exactly the time should run my script and to be
perfectly honest ".. start your run after H hour" doesn't tell a much.
The corpus is variable, the machine running the corpus also a variable
and the day of the week (Sat is slower because of the -net rules).
It would be much clear (at least for me) if I know the time when I have
to rsync my corpus - say make sure your corpus hits the server by H
hour. That way I can adapt my starting script time with the corpus size,
machine and the day of the week.
See the message below. Also related errors reported to both the sysadmins and ruleqa lists for over a week.
I only got "bad performing rules" mail that doesn't tell much about
submission.
Can we (ruleqa) get the output of this script too and there
was another (I can't remember its name) about the corpus of each
contributor and the minimum threshold, that could be also useful.
--
Cheers,
--lucian
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2026-02-20 at 17:03:08 UTC-0500 (Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:03:08 -0500)
Bill Cole <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> On 2026-02-20 at 11:29:50 UTC-0500 (Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:29:50 +0100)
> Tobi <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> Bill
>>
>>> Based on what I see today, I think the rule needs to be that you
>>> update the rules and run a masscheck after 09:00 UTC and upload your
>>> results by 15:00 UTC
>>
>> if the above is the rule then I have a problem with my masschecks.
>> Had
>> to move the server rack from the old location into my office. As
>> masschecks runs on a very loud server I have to start it after office
>> hours. It currently starts at 22:00 and the masscheck start 22:33
>> (both
>> CEST). If that is too late then I see no option but to stop
>> contributing to masscheck as I do daily homeoffice so I cannot start
>> it
>> earlier.
>
> Please continue to contribute, even with the later runs.
>
> I am not sure that the check script running at 15:00 is an actual
> indication of masscheck logs not being used.
I am now sure that the check script is running *hourly* every day
*starting* at 15:00 UTC, as a way of alerting contributors so they can
send their results before the 23:00 rescoring run.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo@toad.social and many *@billmail.scconsult.com
addresses)
Please keep discussion mailing list replies *on-list*
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2026-02-20 at 11:29:50 UTC-0500 (Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:29:50 +0100)
Tobi <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> Bill
>
>> Based on what I see today, I think the rule needs to be that you
>> update the rules and run a masscheck after 09:00 UTC and upload your
>> results by 15:00 UTC
>
> if the above is the rule then I have a problem with my masschecks. Had
> to move the server rack from the old location into my office. As
> masschecks runs on a very loud server I have to start it after office
> hours. It currently starts at 22:00 and the masscheck start 22:33
> (both
> CEST). If that is too late then I see no option but to stop
> contributing to masscheck as I do daily homeoffice so I cannot start
> it
> earlier.
Please continue to contribute, even with the later runs.
I am not sure that the check script running at 15:00 is an actual
indication of masscheck logs not being used.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo@toad.social and many *@billmail.scconsult.com
addresses)
Please keep discussion mailing list replies *on-list*
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Tobi <ja...@gmx.ch>.
Bill
> Based on what I see today, I think the rule needs to be that you
> update the rules and run a masscheck after 09:00 UTC and upload your
> results by 15:00 UTC
if the above is the rule then I have a problem with my masschecks. Had
to move the server rack from the old location into my office. As
masschecks runs on a very loud server I have to start it after office
hours. It currently starts at 22:00 and the masscheck start 22:33 (both
CEST). If that is too late then I see no option but to stop
contributing to masscheck as I do daily homeoffice so I cannot start it
earlier.
Cheers
tobi
On Fri, 2026-02-20 at 11:18 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 2026-02-13 at 14:24:12 UTC-0500 (Fri, 13 Feb 2026 20:24:12 +0100)
> Lucian Langa <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
> > > Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
> >
> > could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
> > might not be the only one)
> >
> > Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
>
> It needs to be earlier. I don't know how long your run takes, but the
> log needs to arrive by 15:00 UTC with the correct rule revision.
>
> > > > SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
> > > >
> > > > New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
> > > > SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
> > > > 1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
> >
> > but rev 1931846 was completed on my side at about Feb 13 18:34 CET
> > (that's 17:34 UTC) so it probably means is was late at least 2
> > hours.
> >
> > yet on "in the past week" rev 1031743 seems fine at 17:25 (10 mins
> > earlier than 13'th run.
> >
> > > > Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
> > > > SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
> > > > 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
> >
> > I must admit never know exactly the time should run my script and
> > to
> > be
> > perfectly honest ".. start your run after H hour" doesn't tell a
> > much.
> > The corpus is variable, the machine running the corpus also a
> > variable
> > and the day of the week (Sat is slower because of the -net rules).
> >
> > It would be much clear (at least for me) if I know the time when I
> > have
> > to rsync my corpus - say make sure your corpus hits the server by H
> > hour. That way I can adapt my starting script time with the corpus
> > size,
> > machine and the day of the week.
>
> Based on what I see today, I think the rule needs to be that you
> update
> the rules and run a masscheck after 09:00 UTC and upload your results
> by
> 15:00 UTC
>
> A longer explanation of that is coming to the mailing list shortly
>
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Lucian Langa <lu...@gnome.eu.org>.
On 20.02.2026 12:13, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 2026-02-20 at 11:59:40 UTC-0500 (Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:59:40 +0100)
> Lucian Langa <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > On 20.02.2026 11:18, Bill Cole wrote:
> > > > On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
> > > > > Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
> > > >
> > > > could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
> > > > might not be the only one)
> > > >
> > > > Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
> > >
> > > It needs to be earlier. I don't know how long your run takes, but
> > > the log
> > > needs to arrive by 15:00 UTC with the correct rule revision.
> >
> > I was afraid of that. That's pretty terrible. It basically means we only
> > have 6 hours to complete the run. Based on that my current run is
> > missing 2 hours at least. I do not think 6 hours is enough. I currently
> > run 100k ham and 2k spam (for some reason I'm low on spam these days -
> > that might be another thing related to ruleqa being low on fuel -
> > perhaps others have low SPAM numbers too).
>
> Yes. We have had a steady decline in total spam numbers. That's good in the
> broad view, but it is a challenging problem.
>
> I'm not sure if this is a "real" reduction in spam or a drop in the portion
> of spammers who make it to sending DATA on the systems of contributors. I
> know that on the systems I manage, the overwhelming majority of SMTP
> connections don't get to the point of DATA.
It got me thinking. For a couple of years I run aggressive fail2ban on SMTP auth fail
(agressive as block on first try for 1+ month).
My boxes are hit by a lot of SMTP auth atempts so I have around 1300-1500
IPs blocked constantly. Not entirely sure it's related but that might
affect the spam numbers too.
Another issue is we actually need pretty fresh spam, I believe less that
2 months old for spam and 6 years ?? If I'm right reading automasscheck cf
file - those --after=-<timestamp> flags. I mean do we really need that fresh SPAM ?
I have around 2.5k spam on my corp and almost 1k gets trimmed down by freshness.
Looking at 'do-stable-update-with-scores' - the one that runs on Sunday
I believe
> + SPAMCOUNT=35750
> + echo ' HAM: 138070 (100000 required)'
> HAM: 138070 (100000 required)
> + echo 'SPAM: 35750 (55000 required)'
> SPAM: 35750 (55000 required)
means we only need 20k more spam. We do have enough ham tho, so I could get
away with slashing mine a bit.
I could probably squeeze 1k of spam on my corp, 2k would be a stretch but
20k .. there's no way I could do that and I'm not sure I want to start asking
for spam :)
(Oh btw I do get the entire output of the crons now, Thank you! and yes I was kinda
filtering/ignoring those - I had to subscribe to sysadmins list too -
Thanks)
> > I'll try to halve my ham for next week to see how that goes.
>
> I will try over the weekend to figure out if we can adjust the schedule so
> that everyone can get stuff done and uploaded in a reasonable timeframe.
I was under the impression Saturday run was a lot longer because of the
-net rules but it didn't make significant difference last week (30min to 1 hr maybe)
perhaps due to 'reuse' thing.
--
Cheers,
--lucian
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2026-02-20 at 11:59:40 UTC-0500 (Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:59:40 +0100)
Lucian Langa <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> On 20.02.2026 11:18, Bill Cole wrote:
>>> On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
>>>> Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
>>>
>>> could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
>>> might not be the only one)
>>>
>>> Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
>>
>> It needs to be earlier. I don't know how long your run takes, but the
>> log
>> needs to arrive by 15:00 UTC with the correct rule revision.
>
> I was afraid of that. That's pretty terrible. It basically means we
> only
> have 6 hours to complete the run. Based on that my current run is
> missing 2 hours at least. I do not think 6 hours is enough. I
> currently
> run 100k ham and 2k spam (for some reason I'm low on spam these days -
> that might be another thing related to ruleqa being low on fuel -
> perhaps others have low SPAM numbers too).
Yes. We have had a steady decline in total spam numbers. That's good in
the broad view, but it is a challenging problem.
I'm not sure if this is a "real" reduction in spam or a drop in the
portion of spammers who make it to sending DATA on the systems of
contributors. I know that on the systems I manage, the overwhelming
majority of SMTP connections don't get to the point of DATA.
> I'll try to halve my ham for next week to see how that goes.
I will try over the weekend to figure out if we can adjust the schedule
so that everyone can get stuff done and uploaded in a reasonable
timeframe.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo@toad.social and many *@billmail.scconsult.com
addresses)
Please keep discussion mailing list replies *on-list*
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Lucian Langa <lu...@gnome.eu.org>.
On 20.02.2026 11:18, Bill Cole wrote:
> > On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
> > > Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
> >
> > could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
> > might not be the only one)
> >
> > Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
>
> It needs to be earlier. I don't know how long your run takes, but the log
> needs to arrive by 15:00 UTC with the correct rule revision.
I was afraid of that. That's pretty terrible. It basically means we only
have 6 hours to complete the run. Based on that my current run is
missing 2 hours at least. I do not think 6 hours is enough. I currently
run 100k ham and 2k spam (for some reason I'm low on spam these days -
that might be another thing related to ruleqa being low on fuel -
perhaps others have low SPAM numbers too).
I'll try to halve my ham for next week to see how that goes.
--
Cheers,
--lucian
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2026-02-13 at 14:24:12 UTC-0500 (Fri, 13 Feb 2026 20:24:12 +0100)
Lucian Langa <ru...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
>> Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
>
> could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
> might not be the only one)
>
> Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
It needs to be earlier. I don't know how long your run takes, but the
log needs to arrive by 15:00 UTC with the correct rule revision.
>>> SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
>>>
>>> New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
>>> SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
>>> 1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
>
> but rev 1931846 was completed on my side at about Feb 13 18:34 CET
> (that's 17:34 UTC) so it probably means is was late at least 2 hours.
>
> yet on "in the past week" rev 1031743 seems fine at 17:25 (10 mins
> earlier than 13'th run.
>
>>> Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
>>> SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
>>> 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
>
> I must admit never know exactly the time should run my script and to
> be
> perfectly honest ".. start your run after H hour" doesn't tell a much.
> The corpus is variable, the machine running the corpus also a variable
> and the day of the week (Sat is slower because of the -net rules).
>
> It would be much clear (at least for me) if I know the time when I
> have
> to rsync my corpus - say make sure your corpus hits the server by H
> hour. That way I can adapt my starting script time with the corpus
> size,
> machine and the day of the week.
Based on what I see today, I think the rule needs to be that you update
the rules and run a masscheck after 09:00 UTC and upload your results by
15:00 UTC
A longer explanation of that is coming to the mailing list shortly
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo@toad.social and many *@billmail.scconsult.com
addresses)
Please keep discussion mailing list replies *on-list*
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Lucian Langa <lu...@gnome.eu.org>.
Hi Bill,
On 13.02.2026 10:57, Bill Cole wrote:
> Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
could this once again be that (my) submission time is off (though I
might not be the only one)
Looking at checkMasscheckContribs.sh time is 15:17 UTC
> > SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
> >
> > New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
> > SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
> > 1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
but rev 1931846 was completed on my side at about Feb 13 18:34 CET
(that's 17:34 UTC) so it probably means is was late at least 2 hours.
yet on "in the past week" rev 1031743 seems fine at 17:25 (10 mins
earlier than 13'th run.
> > Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
> > SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
> > 1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
I must admit never know exactly the time should run my script and to be
perfectly honest ".. start your run after H hour" doesn't tell a much.
The corpus is variable, the machine running the corpus also a variable
and the day of the week (Sat is slower because of the -net rules).
It would be much clear (at least for me) if I know the time when I have
to rsync my corpus - say make sure your corpus hits the server by H
hour. That way I can adapt my starting script time with the corpus size,
machine and the day of the week.
> See the message below. Also related errors reported to both the sysadmins and ruleqa lists for over a week.
I only got "bad performing rules" mail that doesn't tell much about
submission.
Can we (ruleqa) get the output of this script too and there
was another (I can't remember its name) about the corpus of each
contributor and the minimum threshold, that could be also useful.
--
Cheers,
--lucian
Re: RuleQA low on fuel…
Posted by Kent Oyer <ke...@mxguardian.net>.
I requested and received rsync credentials awhile back but never got around to setting it up. If someone could help me locate or regenerate those credentials I can start doing nightly mass checks.
Thanks
Kent
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 07:58 AM, Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAUTION: External email from: billcole@apache.org
Use caution before clicking on links or opening attachments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the message below. Also related errors reported to both the sysadmins and ruleqa lists for over a week.
At first I thought this was entirely secondary to the DDoS aimed at sa-vm. I did a couple rounds of mass blocking of network ranges doing bad things, but it seems that there is likely also just a lack of masscheck logs coming in.
Anyone have ideas for how to fix this?
Forwarded message:
From: automc@sa-vm.apache.org (mailto:automc@sa-vm.apache.org)
To: sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org (mailto:sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org)
Subject: checkMasscheckContribs.sh on sa-vm.apache.org - not enough contributors for SVN 1931846
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 15:17:02 +0000 (UTC)
Corpus total: 82, Old: 8, Recent: 38, New: 18
SVN tagged rev in nightly_mass_check: 1931846
New masscheck submission listings in the past day:
SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-jhardin.r1931846.log (Feb 13 10:53)
1931824 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
1931801 (No) - spam-llanga.r1931801.log (Feb 11 17:21)
1931824 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-giovanni-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
1931824 (No) - spam-giovanni-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
1931824 (No) - ham-giovanni-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-whyscream.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:09)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-spamsponge.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-whyscream.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:09)
1931801 (No) - ham-llanga.r1931801.log (Feb 11 17:21)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-giovanni-ham.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-grenier.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-spamsponge.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
1931824 (No) - spam-spamsponge.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
1931824 (No) - spam-llanga.r1931824.log (Feb 12 17:26)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
1931824 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-giovanni-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
1931824 (No) - ham-spamsponge.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 13:21)
1931824 (No) - ham-grenier.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
1931824 (No) - ham-giovanni-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
1931824 (No) - ham-jhardin.r1931824.log (Feb 12 10:53)
1931824 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-giovanni-spam.r1931846.log (Feb 13 11:48)
1931824 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 13:21)
1931846 (Yes) - spam-grenier.r1931846.log (Feb 13 09:00)
1931824 (No) - ham-whyscream.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:09)
1931824 (No) - spam-grenier.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:00)
1931846 (Yes) - ham-jhardin.r1931846.log (Feb 13 10:53)
1931824 (No) - spam-whyscream.r1931824.log (Feb 12 09:09)
1931824 (No) - spam-giovanni-ham.r1931824.log (Feb 12 11:44)
1931824 (No) - spam-jhardin.r1931824.log (Feb 12 10:53)
16/18 matches (8 ham, 8 spam)
WARNING: NOT ENOUGH CONTRIBUTORS, MINIMUM REQUIRED IS 10!!!
Recent masscheck submission listings in the past week:
SVN rev (Match) File Name (Date)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week4.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
1931801 (No) - spam-jhardin.r1931801.log (Feb 11 10:53)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-spamsponge.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:00)
1931801 (No) - ham-giovanni-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
1931801 (No) - spam-ena-week1.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:09)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
1931801 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
1931801 (No) - spam-spamsponge.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
1931801 (No) - ham-giovanni-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
1931801 (No) - ham-jhardin.r1931801.log (Feb 11 10:53)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week1.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-jhardin.r1931743.log (Feb 7 11:01)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-spamsponge.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:00)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week3.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:30)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week0.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:06)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week0.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:06)
1931801 (No) - ham-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week3.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:30)
1931801 (No) - ham-spamsponge.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-whyscream.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:12)
1931801 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
1931801 (No) - spam-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 13:20)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-whyscream.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:12)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-llanga.r1931743.log (Feb 7 17:25)
1931801 (No) - spam-whyscream.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:10)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-jhardin.r1931743.log (Feb 7 11:01)
1931801 (No) - spam-grenier.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
1931801 (No) - spam-giovanni-ham.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-ena-week4.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
1931801 (No) - ham-ena-week1.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:09)
1931801 (No) - ham-whyscream.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:10)
1931801 (No) - spam-giovanni-spam.r1931801.log (Feb 11 11:43)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-mmiroslaw-mails-ham.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
1931743 (Yes) - spam-net-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
1931801 (No) - ham-grenier.r1931801.log (Feb 11 09:00)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-ena-week1.r1931743.log (Feb 7 09:15)
1931743 (Yes) - ham-net-mmiroslaw-mails-spam.r1931743.log (Feb 7 13:29)
20/38 matches (10 ham, 10 spam)
NOTE: Old are probably no longer running automasscheck script.