RE: PROPOSAL: create "SpamAssassin Rules Project"

[Chris Santerre <cs...@MerchantsOverseas.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jm@jmason.org [mailto:jm@jmason.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 6:53 PM
> To: scottn
> Cc: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: create "SpamAssassin Rules Project" 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> scottn writes:
> > > ... few rule writers.
> > > This is explicitly what you (we) are trying to change.
> > 
> > Is there a HOWTO for prospective rules writers?
> > Examples maybe?
> > 
> > If so, it should be more obvious from the spamassassin main 
> web page.
> > If not, then IMO documentation about the current process would
> > be more helpful than changing for some other process, no matter
> > how much "better" the new process is.
> 
> the current process is like this -- 
> 
> - - contributor develops rules
> - - opens a bugzilla bug about it
> - - attaches the ruleset, as a file
> - - signs a CLA, if it's a big ruleset
> - - SpamAssassin committers come along, extract the rules, 
> and copy them
>   into "rules/70_testing.cf"; possibly renaming them along the way!
> - - later -- those rules are mass-checked
> - - later -- the results are available on the web
> - - if results are good:
>   - the rules are checked in
> - - if bad:
>   - they're not.
> 
> The failures are:
> 
> - - there's too much human legwork involved.  cut out requiring the
>   committers to schlep stuff around just to test the rules.

Auto corpus checks being the first line is the best method. Only after
getting those results back to the rule writter for corrections, should a
complete mass check be done. 

> 
> - - there's no defined way to feed back results from testing 
> to the original
>   contributor, which can result in stuff getting overlooked

The above is key. Many times a simple regex change can make an OK rule into
a GREAT rule. 

> 
> - - having to rename the rules is a bit of a mess.  not sure 
> if there is
>   a good way to fix that though

Do you mean simply categorizing the names, or the rights to rename? 

--Chris