You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2018/09/19 10:55:44 UTC

[Bug 7627] New: warn: config: Strange rule token: 0.001

https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7627

            Bug ID: 7627
           Summary: warn: config: Strange rule token: 0.001
           Product: Spamassassin
           Version: 3.4.2
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: spamassassin
          Assignee: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
          Reporter: h.reindl@thelounge.net
  Target Milestone: Undefined

/usr/bin/spamassassin --siteconfigpath=/etc/mail/spamassassin -D --lint 2>&1

Sep 19 12:36:22.977 [1193328] warn: config: Strange rule token: 0.001
*that* is not helpful without mention file and line

Sep 19 12:36:22.977 [1193328] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
"/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf": use_pyzor 1
Sep 19 12:36:22.977 [1193328] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
"/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf": pyzor_max 10
Sep 19 12:36:22.977 [1193328] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
"/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf": pyzor_path /usr/bin/pyzor
Sep 19 12:36:22.977 [1193328] warn: config: Strange rule token: 0.001
Sep 19 12:36:22.980 [1193328] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
"/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf": shortcircuit CUST_SHORTCIRCUIT1 on
Sep 19 12:36:22.980 [1193328] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
"/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf": shortcircuit CUST_SHORTCIRCUIT2 on
Sep 19 12:36:22.980 [1193328] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
"/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf": shortcircuit CUST_SHORTCIRCUIT3 on

cat spamd-local.conf | grep "0\.001"
meta T_OBFU_ATTACH_MISSP 0.001
score T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF 0.001
score T_OBFU_PDF_ATTACH 0.001
score T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID 0.001
score T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT 0.001
score T_REMOTE_IMAGE 0.001
score T_MONEY_PERCENT 0.001
score T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF_BCC 0.001
score DOC_ATTACH_NO_EXT 0.001
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED 0.001
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.001
score RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTED -0.001
score RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.001
score URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 7627] warn: config: Strange rule token: 0.001

Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7627

John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jhardin@impsec.org

--- Comment #1 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
(In reply to Reindl Harald from comment #0)
> Sep 19 12:36:22.977 [1193328] warn: config: Strange rule token: 0.001
> *that* is not helpful without mention file and line

Agreed.

Not sure whether we *have* a file/line available at that point in the parser
code.

The parser includes the rule name in the lint_warn() parameters but that
apparently gets discarded. This may be a symptom of a wider bug in lint
logging...


This is the cause:
> meta T_OBFU_ATTACH_MISSP 0.001

That appears nowhere in the base rules.

The number there is not a score, it's whether the rule hits. Something like

  meta T_OBFU_ATTACH_MISSP 0

is done to satisfy dependencies with a rule that never hits.

Set that to either 0 if you want to pretend the rule never hits, or 1 if you
want to pretend the rule always hits.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 7627] warn: config: Strange rule token: 0.001

Posted by bu...@spamassassin.apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7627

Henrik Krohns <he...@hege.li> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hege@hege.li
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED

--- Comment #2 from Henrik Krohns <he...@hege.li> ---
This was fixed in revision 1842593.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.