Re[2]: SA, perl 5.8.7 and rules

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

Hello Chris,

In addition,

Monday, December 19, 2005, 3:20:50 PM, you wrote:
C> Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> Chris wrote on Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:37:05 -0600 (CST):
>>>What would cause SA (sa-spamd) to core (perl) when there are rules in
>>>mail/spamassassin (recently downloaded from rulesemporium)? 
>>> 
>>>If however, I leave the above dir empty, Both Amavis and SA startup
>>>without issues.

you indicated you're using
70_sare_adult.cf                70_sare_highrisk.cf
70_sare_unsub.cf                70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf
70_sare_html0.cf                70_sare_uri0.cf
70_sare_evilnum0.cf             70_sare_obfu.cf 
70_sare_whitelist.cf            local.cf.sample
70_sare_evilnum1.cf             70_sare_oem.cf 
72_sare_bml_post25x.cf          sa-blacklist.current.bigevil.cf
70_sare_genlsubj0.cf            70_sare_random.cf 
72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf   70_sare_header0.cf 
70_sare_specific.cf             99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf
70_sare_header1.cf              70_sare_spoof.cf 
bogus-virus-warnings.cf

In other words, you're using the SAFEST and most conservative subsets
of the html, evilnum, genlsubj, and uri rules files, the two safest of
the header rules files, and yet you're using 70_sare_highrisk.cf?  To
me (author or maintainer of most of these specific files), that does
not make sense.  If you're willing to be risky enough to use
highrisk.cf (which even I don't do on my production system), then you
should use all of the *1.cf and *3.cf files as well (I do use those,
even though I don't use highrisk.cf).

Bob Menschel