Re[2]: proposal: an automated rule-qa system

[Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net>]

Hello Chris, Justin,

Friday, November 19, 2004, 5:57:51 AM, you wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: jm@jmason.org [mailto:jm@jmason.org]
>>Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:16 PM
>>To: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
>>Subject: proposal: an automated rule-qa system
>>
CS> *SNIP*
>>
>>We add a web-app somewhere that periodically scrapes bugzilla
>>for bugs on the "rules" component which contain some token from trusted
>>users indicating that they contain rules that need testing.
>>
>>That then extracts rules from attachments/text on that bug, and
>>
CS> *SNIP*
>>Sound useful?  That should at least take some legwork out of rule QA,
>>and stop us committers being a bottleneck in the process.

CS> +1   ;)

Ditto,  er,  +1.   :-)

CS> Although the ninjas have been really slow to find new rules, as
CS> spam is getting caught so well now.

Speak for yourself, Chris.  I've developed several dozen rules in the
past month.  Unfortunately, with no system to mass-check them on, I'm
going on the theory that none, or maybe just one of them, warrants
formal submission, and that one can wait for a few more days until I
can mass-check it...

However, there are a number of rules currently in our SARE rules files
which probably are worth submitting, and as soon as I can get my
@#$MS%#$Windows@#$XP system running again[fn], I may do so.

Bob Menschel


[fn] Can't blame it all on MS -- almost had it running again the way I
wanted when Wednesday last week the hard drive crashed on me.

Re: Re[2]: proposal: an automated rule-qa system

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net> writes:

> Speak for yourself, Chris.  I've developed several dozen rules in the
> past month.  Unfortunately, with no system to mass-check them on, I'm
> going on the theory that none, or maybe just one of them, warrants
> formal submission, and that one can wait for a few more days until I
> can mass-check it...

For what it's worth, I have no issue with letting any untested, but
reasonable rule get tested nightly along with the rest.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/