defining new rule types

[John Myers <jg...@proofpoint.com>]

Justin Mason wrote:

> Agreed that adding new rule types is *doable*, if not exactly intuitive.
>
>I've done it in the URIBL code, by simply adding eval rules on the fly,
>and that seems to work OK.   It'd be nice to have a more intuitive method,
>though.
>  
>
I just call PerMsgStatus::got_pattern_hit() from the plugin's 
parsed_metadata().  I suppose I'm missing the syntax checks and other 
minor things done by Conf::Parser::add_test().

>>The one area that could 
>>use work is in providing the default score.
>>    
>>
>
>how so?  do you mean having a score of != 1.0, by default?
>  
>
It appears that since my new type of rules never appear in 
$conf->{tests}, they never get assigned a default score.

I do happen to need some of my newly defined tests to have a default 
score of 0.  For example, suppose there are two lines in the .cf file 
using a new rule type "foo":

foo BAR baz
foo BAR quux

If a message matches either condition "baz" or "quux" (or both) then it 
will fire the test BAR, which should have a default score of 1.  In 
order to record the specific condition that caused BAR to be triggered, 
it will also fire FOO_baz if "foo" was matched and/or fire FOO_quux if 
"quux" was matched.  These latter tests are not intended to be weighted, 
so should be assigned a default score of 0.  It may be worthwhile to 
define a new prefix, e.g. "I_" for such informational tests.