You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Adam Katz <an...@khopis.com> on 2011/06/28 00:18:57 UTC

227 published T_ rules

Not sure which bug to post this to or if it's fully relevant, but here's
a quick grep of the current 3.3.1 sa-updates tarball:

% host -ttxt  1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org.
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text "1139740"
% host -ttxt  mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org.
mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text
"http://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY"
% wget -qq -O - http://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY
# test mirror: zone, cached via Coral
#http://buildbot.spamassassin.org.nyud.net:8090/updatestage/
http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/asf/ weight=5
http://www.sa-update.pccc.com/ weight=5
% wget -qq -O - http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/asf/1139740.tar.gz
|tar -zxf -
% grep '^[^#]*\bT_' *cf |wc -l
227

To break that down, that's:

% grep -hP '^\s*\w+\s+T_' *.cf |wc -l
211
% grep -hP '^\s*\w+\s+\b(?!T_)[^#]+\bT_' *.cf |wc -l
16

We have 211 published T_ prefix rules and 16 other rules that depend on
T_ rules.


The trunk is pretty much the same story, though with one fewer meta:

% svn info
Path: .
URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/trunk
Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf
Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
Revision: 1140331
Node Kind: directory
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: axb
Last Changed Rev: 1140321
Last Changed Date: 2011-06-27 14:03:41 -0700 (Mon, 27 Jun 2011)
% cd rules
% grep -hP '^\s*\w+\s+T_' 72_active.cf |wc -l
211
% grep -hP '^\s*\w+\s+\b(?!T_)[^#]+\bT_' 72_active.cf |wc -l
15




Re: 227 published T_ rules

Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
> We have 211 published T_ prefix rules and 16 other rules that depend on
> T_ rules.
Where T_ rules should be published or run is something in this bug 
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6527

I think they are development only as you can see in my comment #2.  I 
support not publishing them if it doesn't break masscheck.  If it does, 
adding a test-rules parameter to spamd/spamassassin will be useful in my 
opinion.

OK, I'm sure everyone is tired of me posting tonight.  Signing off.

regards,
KAM