You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Axb <ax...@gmail.com> on 2014/07/30 17:45:34 UTC
+tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
--- 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614687)
+++ 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614688)
@@ -1572,5 +1572,6 @@
uri URI_IP_UNSUB
m;^[a-z]+://(?:\d+\.){3}\d+/.*unsubscribe;i
describe URI_IP_UNSUB IP-address unsubscribe URI
+tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20140729-r1614286-n/T_URI_IP_UNSUB/detail
Why is this rule being tflagged to publish?
it's S/0 hardly rates it.
with only 19 masscheck hits?
Re: +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 7/30/2014 4:11 PM, Axb wrote:
> On 07/30/2014 09:04 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> On 7/30/2014 12:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>> According to the wiki, "rules without an explicit "tflags publish"
>>>> line are never published",
>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaUpdateBackend
>>>
>>> ...which isn't actually how it behaves, as there are quite a few rules
>>> in my sandbox that don't have "tflags publish" yet are going out.
>> Agreed. I imagine someone changed it so that tflags publish wasn't
>> needed because they didn't want to edit every rule in every sandbox.
>>
>> Should we change the docs or the rule promotion?
>>
>> Regards,
>> KAM
>
> +1 for docs
> -1 for editing every rule :)
Changed to:
* rules do not currently need an explicit "tflags publish" line to be
published but the existence of either "tflags publish" or "tflags
nopublish" is recommended to make it clear if the rule is intended to be
published if it meets the promotion criteria.
Regards,
KAM
Re: +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 07/30/2014 09:04 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/30/2014 12:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> According to the wiki, "rules without an explicit "tflags publish"
>>> line are never published",
>>> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaUpdateBackend
>>
>> ...which isn't actually how it behaves, as there are quite a few rules
>> in my sandbox that don't have "tflags publish" yet are going out.
> Agreed. I imagine someone changed it so that tflags publish wasn't
> needed because they didn't want to edit every rule in every sandbox.
>
> Should we change the docs or the rule promotion?
>
> Regards,
> KAM
+1 for docs
-1 for editing every rule :)
Re: +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 7/30/2014 4:49 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/2014 12:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> > According to the wiki, "rules without an explicit "tflags
>>> publish" line > are never published", >
>>> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaUpdateBackend
>>>
>>> ...which isn't actually how it behaves, as there are quite a few
>>> rules in
>>> my sandbox that don't have "tflags publish" yet are going out.
>>
>> Agreed. I imagine someone changed it so that tflags publish wasn't
>> needed because they didn't want to edit every rule in every sandbox.
>>
>> Should we change the docs or the rule promotion?
>
> I'd suggest the docs. If you want to test a rule without publication
> you can name it T_
>
> Question: does a subrule that is used in no metas get published? I
> sometimes do that for testing instead of the T_ naming.
>
I would have to test, sorry. Good question!
Re: +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/30/2014 12:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> > According to the wiki, "rules without an explicit "tflags publish" line
>> > are never published",
>> > https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaUpdateBackend
>>
>> ...which isn't actually how it behaves, as there are quite a few rules in
>> my sandbox that don't have "tflags publish" yet are going out.
>
> Agreed. I imagine someone changed it so that tflags publish wasn't needed
> because they didn't want to edit every rule in every sandbox.
>
> Should we change the docs or the rule promotion?
I'd suggest the docs. If you want to test a rule without publication you
can name it T_
Question: does a subrule that is used in no metas get published? I
sometimes do that for testing instead of the T_ naming.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The yardstick you should use when considering whether to support a
given piece of legislation is "what if my worst enemy is chosen to
administer this law?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 days until the 279th anniversary of John Peter Zenger's acquittal
Re: +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 7/30/2014 12:15 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> According to the wiki, "rules without an explicit "tflags publish"
>> line are never published",
>> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaUpdateBackend
>
> ...which isn't actually how it behaves, as there are quite a few rules
> in my sandbox that don't have "tflags publish" yet are going out.
Agreed. I imagine someone changed it so that tflags publish wasn't
needed because they didn't want to edit every rule in every sandbox.
Should we change the docs or the rule promotion?
Regards,
KAM
Re: +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/30/2014 11:45 AM, Axb wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614687)
>> +++ 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614688)
>> @@ -1572,5 +1572,6 @@
>>
>> uri URI_IP_UNSUB m;^[a-z]+://(?:\d+\.){3}\d+/.*unsubscribe;i
>> describe URI_IP_UNSUB IP-address unsubscribe URI
>> +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
>>
>>
>> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20140729-r1614286-n/T_URI_IP_UNSUB/detail
>>
>>
>> Why is this rule being tflagged to publish?
>>
>> it's S/0 hardly rates it.
>>
>> with only 19 masscheck hits?
>
> According to the wiki, "rules without an explicit "tflags publish" line are
> never published", https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaUpdateBackend
...which isn't actually how it behaves, as there are quite a few rules in
my sandbox that don't have "tflags publish" yet are going out.
> So this means more that it's now for consideration of promotion. I do not
> believe it's auto-promotion which is what I think you are thinking.
It is a nudge, it appears to make it *more likely* to be promoted, but
isn't actually an on/off switch.
> Right now, since it's T_, it's being handled as a test rule not a promoted
> rule.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where We Want You To Go Today 09/13/07: Microsoft patents in-OS
adware architecture that incorporates monitoring and analysis of
user actions and interrupting the user to display apparently
relevant advertisements (U.S. Patent #20070214042)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 days until the 279th anniversary of John Peter Zenger's acquittal
Re: +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 07/30/2014 05:55 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/30/2014 11:45 AM, Axb wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614687)
>> +++ 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614688)
>> @@ -1572,5 +1572,6 @@
>>
>> uri URI_IP_UNSUB m;^[a-z]+://(?:\d+\.){3}\d+/.*unsubscribe;i
>> describe URI_IP_UNSUB IP-address unsubscribe URI
>> +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
>>
>>
>> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20140729-r1614286-n/T_URI_IP_UNSUB/detail
>>
>>
>> Why is this rule being tflagged to publish?
>>
>> it's S/0 hardly rates it.
>>
>> with only 19 masscheck hits?
> According to the wiki, "rules without an explicit "tflags publish" line
> are never published", https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaUpdateBackend
>
> So this means more that it's now for consideration of promotion. I do
> not believe it's auto-promotion which is what I think you are thinking.
>
> Right now, since it's T_, it's being handled as a test rule not a
> promoted rule.
>
now I'm really confused.....
my sandbox rules, eg: AXB_X_AOL_SEZ_S don't have the tflags and are
getting autopromoted.
same has been with other rules which now don't get published due to bad S/O
Re: +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 7/30/2014 11:45 AM, Axb wrote:
>
>
> --- 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614687)
> +++ 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614688)
> @@ -1572,5 +1572,6 @@
>
> uri URI_IP_UNSUB m;^[a-z]+://(?:\d+\.){3}\d+/.*unsubscribe;i
> describe URI_IP_UNSUB IP-address unsubscribe URI
> +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
>
>
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20140729-r1614286-n/T_URI_IP_UNSUB/detail
>
>
> Why is this rule being tflagged to publish?
>
> it's S/0 hardly rates it.
>
> with only 19 masscheck hits?
According to the wiki, "rules without an explicit "tflags publish" line
are never published", https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaUpdateBackend
So this means more that it's now for consideration of promotion. I do
not believe it's auto-promotion which is what I think you are thinking.
Right now, since it's T_, it's being handled as a test rule not a
promoted rule.
Regards,
KAM
Re: +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, Axb wrote:
> --- 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614687)
> +++ 20_misc_testing.cf (revision 1614688)
> @@ -1572,5 +1572,6 @@
>
> uri URI_IP_UNSUB m;^[a-z]+://(?:\d+\.){3}\d+/.*unsubscribe;i
> describe URI_IP_UNSUB IP-address unsubscribe URI
> +tflags URI_IP_UNSUB publish
>
>
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20140729-r1614286-n/T_URI_IP_UNSUB/detail
>
>
> Why is this rule being tflagged to publish?
>
> it's S/0 hardly rates it.
The S/O is 1.000
> with only 19 masscheck hits?
I looking more at the scores of the messages that *do* hit, 50% of which
score <5 points.
I have seen a lot of spam signs in real-life FNs (not just in my wimpy
feed) and written rules for them that masscheck doesn't promote because of
low overall hits in the corpora. I'm trying to address those.
And "tflags publish" does not guarantee the rule will be published.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the people at the top of both efforts. Linus Torvalds is a
university graduate with a CS degree. Bill Gates is a university
dropout who bragged about dumpster-diving and using other peoples'
garbage code as the basis for his code. Maybe that has something to
do with the difference in quality/security between Linux and
Windows. -- anytwofiveelevenis on Y! SCOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 days until the 279th anniversary of John Peter Zenger's acquittal