Re: When a rule fails, SA give false positives on absent headers

[Evan Platt <ev...@espphotography.com>]

At 07:44 AM 1/15/2007, you wrote:
>Thanks, I have now done this, and it is working fine. However i 
>think it is still a bug for it to give these problems when a rule is 
>miswritten in this way.

You make a mistake in a rule, and you don't lint it, and you get an 
error, and that's a bug?

I'm sorry, but that's kind of like buying a plane, incorrectly 
setting the altimeter (which among other things tells you where the 
ground is), then flying the plane straight into the ground and saying 
it's the planes fault. 

Rép. : Re: When a rule fails, SA give false positives on absent headers

[Éric Bellavance <er...@finances.gouv.qc.ca>]

In this case, the plane shouldn't go straight into the ground but just
fly in the wrong way, like his spamassassin not crashing but triggering
rules he shouldnt.

EB
 
>>> Evan Platt <ev...@espphotography.com> 01/15/07 11:06 AM >>> 
At 07:44 AM 1/15/2007, you wrote:
>Thanks, I have now done this, and it is working fine. However i 
>think it is still a bug for it to give these problems when a rule is 
>miswritten in this way.

You make a mistake in a rule, and you don't lint it, and you get an 
error, and that's a bug?

I'm sorry, but that's kind of like buying a plane, incorrectly 
setting the altimeter (which among other things tells you where the 
ground is), then flying the plane straight into the ground and saying 
it's the planes fault. 

Re: When a rule fails, SA give false positives on absent headers

[Nigel Frankcom <ni...@blue-canoe.net>]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:06:16 -0800, Evan Platt
<ev...@espphotography.com> wrote:

>At 07:44 AM 1/15/2007, you wrote:
>>Thanks, I have now done this, and it is working fine. However i 
>>think it is still a bug for it to give these problems when a rule is 
>>miswritten in this way.
>
>You make a mistake in a rule, and you don't lint it, and you get an 
>error, and that's a bug?
>
>I'm sorry, but that's kind of like buying a plane, incorrectly 
>setting the altimeter (which among other things tells you where the 
>ground is), then flying the plane straight into the ground and saying 
>it's the planes fault. 

For what it's worth, I think the comment about a cascade failure on a
single error has merit. Ideally if a rule did contain an error SA
would 'ignore' that rule and carry on to the next. However, how you'd
deal with meta rules I have no clue, I suspect it's a very large can
of worms or it would probably have been addressed by now.

As is written in many of the wiki pages and the manual --lint, --lint
& --lint again. Even the 'pros' make typo's and have been bitten by
not --lint'ing. It's all too easy to mistype.

http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules pretty much says it
all.

Nigel