Re: BAYES_999 strange behavior

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

On 2/20/2014 2:09 PM, Daniel Staal wrote:
> --As of February 20, 2014 1:56:18 PM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail is 
> alleged to have said:
>
>> People have hard_coded BAYES_999 entries as well.   I recommend
>> forwarding the announcement from John to the other mailing lists you are
>> aware of these discussions.
>
> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>
> I intend to, as soon as I'm sure what's going to happen.  ;)  I just 
> don't want people who've fixed their scores to be penalized. I know 
> that doesn't help people who copied your block re-defining the rules 
> entirely, but nothing really helps them.  (Besides telling them not to 
> do that unless they know what they are doing.) 

As of about 10:30EST Tonight, I expect that versions 3.3.X will be able 
to use sa-update to receive an update that includes BAYES_99 as it used 
to exist + BAYES_999 which overlaps with BAYES_99 and adds 0.2 to the score.

By about 4AM tomorrow, version 3.4.1 will have an update though likely 
no one can access that update.

Tomorrow morning by about 10AM, I will update 3.4.0 manually to receive 
the 3.4.1 update.

So as of ~1 hour past the times above based on the version in use to 
allow for DNS ttl and mirror updates, I would recommend people run 
sa-update and remove any manual edits for rules named BAYES_99 or 
BAYES_999.  If they have manual scoring for these, they will want to 
review those scores for their own installation.  BAYES_99 scores in the 
3.75 range and BAYES_999 will score in the 0.25 range.  Anything outside 
of those scores should be done understanding your own Bayesian database.

They can confirm they received the correct update if the rule score for 
BAYES_999 changes to 0.2, i.e. for a default path 3.4.0 installation:

grep BAYES_999 
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004000/updates_spamassassin_org/50_scores.cf

gives

score BAYES_999 0  0  4.0    3.7

Tomorrow, this should change to 0.2.

regards,
KAM