You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org> on 2020/07/19 16:09:36 UTC
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in process
of being Renamed
All:
As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards compatibility.
Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
will become welcomelist and blacklist will become blocklist. More
changes will be coming for this with these small changes in the stock
ruleset.
Apologies for the disruption and thanks to those who are reporting
issues as we work through the changes.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Luis E. Muñoz" <sa...@lem.click>.
On 19 Jul 2020, at 19:41, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> OK, can you ask for specifics on their use case because if the post-sa
> work is not involving these rules or trivial to update, it might be best
> to follow KISS.
I sent email after replying. Will update on list if/when I hear back.
Best regards
-lem
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
OK, can you ask for specifics on their use case because if the post-sa
work is not involving these rules or trivial to update, it might be best
to follow KISS.
On 7/19/2020 10:39 PM, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2020, at 19:17, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> Ahh yes, good point. Do we know of anyone with this parsing report
>> template type of use case?
>
> I know of at least two use cases where the report template is parsed
> post-sa. I don't know if the specific rules in contention are involved
> in said use cases, but this type of feature seems useful.
>
> Best regards
>
> -lem
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Luis E. Muñoz" <sa...@lem.click>.
On 19 Jul 2020, at 19:17, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Ahh yes, good point. Do we know of anyone with this parsing report
> template type of use case?
I know of at least two use cases where the report template is parsed
post-sa. I don't know if the specific rules in contention are involved
in said use cases, but this type of feature seems useful.
Best regards
-lem
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/19/2020 10:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> Problem is, that's a rule definition and it wouldn't peacefully
> coexist with the "alias" directive as I have it envisioned. Perhaps we
> allow "meta RULENAME" to remove "alias RULENAME" while retaining the
> lint warning for other rule types.
Ahh yes, good point. Do we know of anyone with this parsing report
template type of use case?
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/19/2020 9:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
>> I was mulling the utility of a new config directive in 4.0 to address
>> backwards compatibility of rule names:
>> alias RULENAME RULENAME_2
>>
>> ...which would recognize any config-file directives for RULENAME and
>> apply them as if they'd been written for RULENAME_2.
>>
>> This would discard any existing definition of RULENAME_2 (e.g. header
>> RULENAME_2 ...), and a definition of RULENAME_2 subsequent to that
>> alias would be ignored and a lint warning emitted.
>
> That would work well, yes. How big a lift for that alias idea do you
> think?
Unknown at this time. I don't *think* it would be too complicated. It
shouldn't affect the bulk of SA, just the config file parsing.
>> There is the use case of post-SA message processing looking for
>> specific rule name hits - I can see custom post-SA message processing
>> looking for a hit on "USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO" et al. To avoid breaking
>> that we could add a "report" option to the alias command:
>>
>> alias RULENAME RULENAME_2 report
>
> this seems over complicated. Do you know of anyone doing this use case
> that wouldn't just add a meta rule and be done?
Problem is, that's a rule definition and it wouldn't peacefully coexist
with the "alias" directive as I have it envisioned. Perhaps we allow "meta
RULENAME" to remove "alias RULENAME" while retaining the lint warning for
other rule types.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1969 the technology to fake a Moon landing didn't exist,
but the technology to actually land there did.
Today, it is the opposite. -- unknown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow: the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/19/2020 9:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
>>
>> What do you think of this change along with removing the score from
>> 50_scores.cf? I think it will work back to 3.3.x:
>>
>> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::feature_blocklist_welcomelist)
>> #bz7826 renames whitelist to welcomelist
>> header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_welcomelist()
>> describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in
>> 'welcomelist_to'
>> tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
>> score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -6.0
>> else
>> header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_whitelist()
>> describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in
>> 'welcomelist_to'
>> tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
>> score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -0.01
>>
>> meta USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO (USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO)
>> describe USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO DEPRECATED: See
>> USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
>> tflags USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
>> score USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO -6.0
>> endif
>
>
> That seems a better approach to me. +1
svn commit -m 'More Tweaking to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO' 60_whitelist.cf
50_scores.cf
Sending 50_scores.cf
Sending 60_whitelist.cf
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 1880056.
>
> I was mulling the utility of a new config directive in 4.0 to address
> backwards compatibility of rule names:
> alias RULENAME RULENAME_2
>
> ...which would recognize any config-file directives for RULENAME and
> apply them as if they'd been written for RULENAME_2.
>
> This would discard any existing definition of RULENAME_2 (e.g. header
> RULENAME_2 ...), and a definition of RULENAME_2 subsequent to that
> alias would be ignored and a lint warning emitted.
That would work well, yes. How big a lift for that alias idea do you
think?
> There is the use case of post-SA message processing looking for
> specific rule name hits - I can see custom post-SA message processing
> looking for a hit on "USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO" et al. To avoid breaking
> that we could add a "report" option to the alias command:
>
> alias RULENAME RULENAME_2 report
this seems over complicated. Do you know of anyone doing this use case
that wouldn't just add a meta rule and be done?
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/19/2020 7:39 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> The non-can_welcome_block branch should not be renaming the rule.
>> Doing that breaks existing production installs.
>
> I agree is causing unexpected local rules and local rule scoring issues
> trying to get pre-3.4.3 releases to work.
>
> What do you think of this change along with removing the score from
> 50_scores.cf? I think it will work back to 3.3.x:
>
> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::feature_blocklist_welcomelist)
> #bz7826 renames whitelist to welcomelist
> header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_welcomelist()
> describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
> tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
> score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -6.0
> else
> header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_whitelist()
> describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
> tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
> score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -0.01
>
> meta USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO (USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO)
> describe USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
> tflags USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
> score USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO -6.0
> endif
That seems a better approach to me. +1
I was mulling the utility of a new config directive in 4.0 to address
backwards compatibility of rule names:
alias RULENAME RULENAME_2
...which would recognize any config-file directives for RULENAME and apply
them as if they'd been written for RULENAME_2.
This would discard any existing definition of RULENAME_2 (e.g. header
RULENAME_2 ...), and a definition of RULENAME_2 subsequent to that alias
would be ignored and a lint warning emitted.
That would allow the 4.0 release to be backwards-compatible thusly:
if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::feature_blocklist_welcomelist)
#bz7826 renames whitelist to welcomelist
header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_welcomelist()
describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -6.0
alias USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
else
header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_whitelist()
describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -0.01
meta USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO (USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO)
describe USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
tflags USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO -6.0
endif
There is the use case of post-SA message processing looking for specific
rule name hits - I can see custom post-SA message processing looking for a
hit on "USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO" et al. To avoid breaking that we could add a
"report" option to the alias command:
alias RULENAME RULENAME_2 report
...which would include RULENAME in the rules hit list if RULENAME_2 hits.
However, that would expose RULENAME to user visibility and if the goal
here is to shield sensitive users from seeing "WHITELIST" or "BLACKLIST"
then we have conflicting goals. The report option probably shouldn't be in
the base rules as a default, unless we get information that such a utility
is in wide use.
The alias would be removed from the rule definition when the backwards
compatibility period expires in 4.1+, and we could document in 4.0 UPGRADE
that *IF* a given local post-SA processing utility is looking for these
rule names in the rules hit list then either that utility needs to be
modified to look for the new rule names or the following needs to be put
into the local SA config:
alias USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO report
...(etc.) to set the "report" option on the alias to feed the external
utility until it gets modified to recognize the new rule names.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the hell is an "Aluminum Falcon"?? -- Emperor Palpatine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow: the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/19/2020 7:39 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> The non-can_welcome_block branch should not be renaming the rule.
> Doing that breaks existing production installs.
I agree is causing unexpected local rules and local rule scoring issues
trying to get pre-3.4.3 releases to work.
What do you think of this change along with removing the score from
50_scores.cf? I think it will work back to 3.3.x:
if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::feature_blocklist_welcomelist)
#bz7826 renames whitelist to welcomelist
header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_welcomelist()
describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -6.0
else
header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_whitelist()
describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -0.01
meta USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO (USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO)
describe USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO DEPRECATED: See
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
tflags USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO -6.0
endif
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
> USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
> SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
>
> If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
> references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
The non-can_welcome_block branch should not be renaming the rule. Doing
that breaks existing production installs.
The rule name changes should not be exposed until the 4.0 release when the
internal code changes hit mainstream (i.e. the can_welcome_block branch
starts being used) and the needed rule name changes in local
customizations can be covered in the UPGRADE document.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1969 the technology to fake a Moon landing didn't exist,
but the technology to actually land there did.
Today, it is the opposite. -- unknown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow: the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Riccardo Alfieri <ri...@spamteq.com>.
On 20/07/20 19:31, John Hardin wrote:
>
> Apologies for not clarifying that detail; I was aware of it. I did
> hedge by saying "(potentially) subject to renaming".
>
No apologies necessary, it wasn't directed to you :)
I'm just trying to raise awareness that, while changing things is
possible, it must be done with proper testing and communication to all
the parties involved
--
Best regards,
Riccardo Alfieri
Spamhaus Technology
https://www.spamhaustech.com/
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
> On 20/07/20 19:01, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>> Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one of my private
>> rules uses URIBL_BLACK as a subrule. I have no other potential conflicts
>> with SA rule name changes and no postprocessing that's dependent on SA
>> rule names.
>
> Here just to say that URIBL Black is the official name that URIBL use
> for that blocklist (http://uribl.com/usage.shtml). If there will be a
> name change then a proposal should come from the URIBL team, not SA.
Apologies for not clarifying that detail; I was aware of it. I did hedge
by saying "(potentially) subject to renaming".
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the rock of doom requires a gentle nudge away from Gaia to
prevent a very bad day for Earthlings, NASA won’t be riding to the
rescue. These days, NASA does dodgy weather research and outreach
programs, not stuff in actual space with rockets piloted by
flinty-eyed men called Buzz. -- Daily Bayonet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today: the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Riccardo Alfieri <ri...@spamteq.com>.
On 20/07/20 19:01, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one of my private
> rules uses URIBL_BLACK as a subrule. I have no other potential conflicts
> with SA rule name changes and no postprocessing that's dependent on SA
> rule names.
Here just to say that URIBL Black is the official name that URIBL use
for that blocklist (http://uribl.com/usage.shtml). If there will be a
name change then a proposal should come from the URIBL team, not SA. If
SA is not satisfied with the name it should drop the list from the rules
if the URIBL team is not willing to comply to the name change.
I don't want to enter the discussion about what is good or not, I'm only
concerned that these changes could impact other products in the SA universe
--
Best regards,
Riccardo Alfieri
Spamhaus Technology
https://www.spamhaustech.com/
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 09:30 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> It would be helpful if we could be informed whether anyone has post-
> SA processing that looks for these rulenames in the SA hit results,
> e.g. for making message delivery decisions.
>
Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one of my private
rules uses URIBL_BLACK as a subrule. I have no other potential conflicts
with SA rule name changes and no postprocessing that's dependent on SA
rule names.
Martin
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 09:30 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> It would be helpful if we could be informed whether anyone has post-
> SA processing that looks for these rulenames in the SA hit results,
> e.g. for making message delivery decisions.
>
Repeating previously posted info for completeness: one of my private
rules uses URIBL_BLACK as a subrule. I have no other potential conflicts
with SA rule name changes and no postprocessing that's dependent on SA
rule names.
Martin
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
> USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
> SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
>
> If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
> references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
These are the rulenames from the base rules that are (potentially) subject
to renaming:
HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST
HEADER_HOST_IN_WHITELIST
RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK
SUBJECT_IN_BLACKLIST
SUBJECT_IN_WHITELIST
URI_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST
URI_HOST_IN_WHITELIST
URIBL_BLACK
USER_IN_BLACKLIST
USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO
USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST
USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST
USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST
USER_IN_WHITELIST
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO
(Some of these rules are historical and are currently disabled; they are
included for completeness.)
It would be helpful if we could be informed whether anyone has post-SA
processing that looks for these rulenames in the SA hit results, e.g. for
making message delivery decisions.
Thank you.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1969 the technology to fake a Moon landing didn't exist,
but the technology to actually land there did.
Today, it is the opposite. -- unknown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today: the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
> USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
> SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
>
> If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
> references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
These are the rulenames from the base rules that are (potentially) subject
to renaming:
HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST
HEADER_HOST_IN_WHITELIST
RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK
SUBJECT_IN_BLACKLIST
SUBJECT_IN_WHITELIST
URI_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST
URI_HOST_IN_WHITELIST
URIBL_BLACK
USER_IN_BLACKLIST
USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO
USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST
USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST
USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST
USER_IN_WHITELIST
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO
(Some of these rules are historical and are currently disabled; they are
included for completeness.)
It would be helpful if we could be informed whether anyone has post-SA
processing that looks for these rulenames in the SA hit results, e.g. for
making message delivery decisions.
Thank you.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1969 the technology to fake a Moon landing didn't exist,
but the technology to actually land there did.
Today, it is the opposite. -- unknown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today: the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: More Responses about Various Questions revolving around WelcomeLIst/BlockList
changes
Posted by Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net>.
On 7/23/2020 10:12 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> explained repeatedly. Some people thinking the connection to racism
> exists do not turn this alleged connection into a fact.
>
But don't you understand Ralph that those people are the Very Most
Importantist People In The Entire World so what they think Absolutely
Must Be The Truth No Matter How Rediculous.
> There is also no "right not to be offended" in this world. Hence, I need
> to use email killfiles to weed out those people I just cannot stand.
>
It offends me that you do not agree with my belief that the world is
flat. It is even more offensive that the world refuses to go flat
because I say so!
Ted
Re: More Responses about Various Questions revolving around WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes
Posted by Ralph Seichter <ra...@ml.seichter.de>.
* Alex Woick:
> The racism behind descriptive things like blacklist and whitelist is
> so subtle, so old, so established, nobody realizes they are racist
> except the people it is against.
There is no globally applicaple notion of racism in these terms, as I
explained repeatedly. Some people thinking the connection to racism
exists do not turn this alleged connection into a fact.
There is also no "right not to be offended" in this world. Hence, I need
to use email killfiles to weed out those people I just cannot stand.
-Ralph
Re: More Responses about Various Questions revolving around
WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes
Posted by Alex Woick <al...@wombaz.de>.
Difficult to find an appropriate thread.
I fully support the naming changes, in current configurations and new
projects. Be it with SpamAssassin, be it with everything else.
The changes are necessary. They are overdue for years.
I woke up last year from being an "old white man". I was an old white
man, not powerful in big politics but somewhat in my small world at home
and work. For 50 years I didn't know what racism and discrimination is
about, because I was never discriminated. Never. I am male, I am white,
I live in europe, I got good education, I am healty. I wondered why it
was so easy to get well paid jobs while others were struggling and were
poor, and I looked down on them. I did so well, because I am male, I am
white, I live in europe, got a good education. When I asked something, I
was served before not white people, before women, before not so
well-doing people. This is the unspoken discrimination that's all around
us. I didn't do anything to be preferred, but I was preferred. This is
what most people don't realize. It's everywhere, you don't need to want
to discriminate. It's already there.
The racism behind descriptive things like blacklist and whitelist is so
subtle, so old, so established, nobody realizes they are racist except
the people it is against. And these people ceased to protest, because
their protest is ridiculed and suppressed. This will perpetuate
endlessly with new projects, new configurations, new things - until we
say: "Stop. We change it all. Now. Not tomorrow with new stuff but now
and with everything."
As long as someone is able to find a racist keyword against him in some
config, he is hurt. We must stop hurting him. Not only with future
stuff, but also with current stuff. It's not the task of the suppressed
to change anything, it's our task to change it, because we invented it.
We, the privileged.
It breaks existing configurations and systems, but this is a negligible
thing in comparison to the wound that is tended.
Alex
Re: More Responses about Various Questions revolving around
WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes
Posted by Eric Broch <eb...@whitehorsetc.com>.
That's better than deluded.
On 7/20/2020 8:24 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Eric Broch <eb...@whitehorsetc.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/20/2020 5:49 PM, jdow wrote:
>>> On 20200720 11:53:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>>> *> Why make the change?*
>>>>
>>>> I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to see more of the ecosystem changing to. I will not preempt the news but you are going to see this change pretty broadly.
>>> So this is basically your doing. What I think of you and your arrogance and racism displayed in your wording above and the nature of the change is not suitable for this list. The schools that produced you are training natural born losers.
>>>
>>> {^_^}
>> The Old Dominion is a slave state once again.
> y’all are so dang oppressed, how do you drag yourselves out of bed in the morning?
Re: More Responses about Various Questions revolving around
WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes
Posted by Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net>.
> On Jul 20, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Eric Broch <eb...@whitehorsetc.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/2020 5:49 PM, jdow wrote:
>> On 20200720 11:53:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>> *> Why make the change?*
>>>
>>> I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to see more of the ecosystem changing to. I will not preempt the news but you are going to see this change pretty broadly.
>>
>> So this is basically your doing. What I think of you and your arrogance and racism displayed in your wording above and the nature of the change is not suitable for this list. The schools that produced you are training natural born losers.
>>
>> {^_^}
>
> The Old Dominion is a slave state once again.
y’all are so dang oppressed, how do you drag yourselves out of bed in the morning?
Re: More Responses about Various Questions revolving around
WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes
Posted by Eric Broch <eb...@whitehorsetc.com>.
On 7/20/2020 5:49 PM, jdow wrote:
> On 20200720 11:53:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> *> Why make the change?*
>>
>> I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to see more of
>> the ecosystem changing to. I will not preempt the news but you are
>> going to see this change pretty broadly.
>
> So this is basically your doing. What I think of you and your
> arrogance and racism displayed in your wording above and the nature of
> the change is not suitable for this list. The schools that produced
> you are training natural born losers.
>
> {^_^}
The Old Dominion is a slave state once again.
Re: More Responses about Various Questions revolving around
WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 20200720 11:53:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> *> Why make the change?*
>
> I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to see more of the
> ecosystem changing to. I will not preempt the news but you are going to see
> this change pretty broadly.
So this is basically your doing. What I think of you and your arrogance and
racism displayed in your wording above and the nature of the change is not
suitable for this list. The schools that produced you are training natural born
losers.
{^_^}
More Responses about Various Questions revolving around
WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
Hello, all, with so much volume on the list, I thought it would be
helpful to touch on a number of topics in one email.
Regards,
KAM
*> if you are running 3.X not trunk*
The rule renaming and scoring and description issues shoule be resolved
as soon as the automated system publishes the rules. You'll see
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO with a description that it's deprecated and to see
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO. However, your scoring and any meta rules built
on it will continue to work. We'll extrapolate this to other rules for
BLACKLIST and WHITELIST.
As we approach 4.0's release, we'll look at feedback for that version.
*> should i use sed or search and replace things?*
I would recommend against that right now. We have only changed ONE rule
so far on purpose. With 4.0's upgrade file, we will include guidance on
search and replaces as well as SQL queries for user preferences.
*> Re: Turning off and on backwards compatibility *
This idea isn't really needed. The issue we are working through is the
changes needed to support both current releases like 3.4.4 (soon to be
3.4.5), upcoming releases like 4.0.0 AND some people still using things
as old as 3.3.X.
We are working through with one function (whitelist_to) how best to do that.
The issue is not that we can't do it. We know how to code but rather
how to do new releases AND rulesets that are over a decade old. Even
3.4.2 has issues with sa-update that have been fixed since. People have
asked us to try and keep 3.4.2 working hence the recent work on rules.
*> Backwards compatibility is confusing for those not familiar with the
product.*
We have code such as the upcoming 4.0.0 SA release. We also have rules
which are a different release. We are working on backwards
compatibility for rules for existing releases as well as code changes
with 4.0.
*> what about whitelist_from_spf *@belastingdienst.nl*
That isn't a rule, that's a configuration option. Configuration options
for the new welcomelist_from_spf will include the alias to the previous
entry and will work at least until 4.1.0 is released.
*> Why is XYZ rule not fixed quicker?*
Rule changes take a long time, sometimes days, to go through a QA system
to publish them. We are looking at feedback from users of all different
versions and distros to try and select the best way forward. This is
why we have changed only one rule USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO and we are
working through that as a model for the rest of the changes.
*> Why not fix the rule renaming as part of ruleqa/masscheck?*
Rule QA / Masscheck is complicated. The less it's touched, the better.
*> Why is this breaking of rules not really a big deal?*
Unless there are other changes queued, not getting a rule update is ok.
Your existing rules will remain and the issue is benign but annoying.
*> Why make the change?*
I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to see more of
the ecosystem changing to. I will not preempt the news but you are
going to see this change pretty broadly.
*> If you are Running 3.4.4*
sa-update should work and not error out. You should not receive any
warnings. There should be a meta rule for the new name in the next ruleset.
please let us know if you get any warnings from sa-update and
spamassassin --lint?
*> If you are running 3.4.2*
sa-update should work and not error out. You might get warnings. There
should be a meta rule for the new name in the next ruleset.
please let us know if you get any warnings from a ruleset AFTER 1880040
from sa-update and spamassassin --lint.
*> What about rules like URIBL_BLACK?*
That is a 3rd party rule. We will discuss with the URIBL team about
their plans but if renamed, we would mimic the meta rules with a
duplicated DEPRECATED rule such as we are doing for
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO right now.
More Responses about Various Questions revolving around
WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
Hello, all, with so much volume on the list, I thought it would be
helpful to touch on a number of topics in one email.
Regards,
KAM
*> if you are running 3.X not trunk*
The rule renaming and scoring and description issues shoule be resolved
as soon as the automated system publishes the rules. You'll see
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO with a description that it's deprecated and to see
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO. However, your scoring and any meta rules built
on it will continue to work. We'll extrapolate this to other rules for
BLACKLIST and WHITELIST.
As we approach 4.0's release, we'll look at feedback for that version.
*> should i use sed or search and replace things?*
I would recommend against that right now. We have only changed ONE rule
so far on purpose. With 4.0's upgrade file, we will include guidance on
search and replaces as well as SQL queries for user preferences.
*> Re: Turning off and on backwards compatibility *
This idea isn't really needed. The issue we are working through is the
changes needed to support both current releases like 3.4.4 (soon to be
3.4.5), upcoming releases like 4.0.0 AND some people still using things
as old as 3.3.X.
We are working through with one function (whitelist_to) how best to do that.
The issue is not that we can't do it. We know how to code but rather
how to do new releases AND rulesets that are over a decade old. Even
3.4.2 has issues with sa-update that have been fixed since. People have
asked us to try and keep 3.4.2 working hence the recent work on rules.
*> Backwards compatibility is confusing for those not familiar with the
product.*
We have code such as the upcoming 4.0.0 SA release. We also have rules
which are a different release. We are working on backwards
compatibility for rules for existing releases as well as code changes
with 4.0.
*> what about whitelist_from_spf *@belastingdienst.nl*
That isn't a rule, that's a configuration option. Configuration options
for the new welcomelist_from_spf will include the alias to the previous
entry and will work at least until 4.1.0 is released.
*> Why is XYZ rule not fixed quicker?*
Rule changes take a long time, sometimes days, to go through a QA system
to publish them. We are looking at feedback from users of all different
versions and distros to try and select the best way forward. This is
why we have changed only one rule USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO and we are
working through that as a model for the rest of the changes.
*> Why not fix the rule renaming as part of ruleqa/masscheck?*
Rule QA / Masscheck is complicated. The less it's touched, the better.
*> Why is this breaking of rules not really a big deal?*
Unless there are other changes queued, not getting a rule update is ok.
Your existing rules will remain and the issue is benign but annoying.
*> Why make the change?*
I believe it's the right thing to do and you are going to see more of
the ecosystem changing to. I will not preempt the news but you are
going to see this change pretty broadly.
*> If you are Running 3.4.4*
sa-update should work and not error out. You should not receive any
warnings. There should be a meta rule for the new name in the next ruleset.
please let us know if you get any warnings from sa-update and
spamassassin --lint?
*> If you are running 3.4.2*
sa-update should work and not error out. You might get warnings. There
should be a meta rule for the new name in the next ruleset.
please let us know if you get any warnings from a ruleset AFTER 1880040
from sa-update and spamassassin --lint.
*> What about rules like URIBL_BLACK?*
That is a 3rd party rule. We will discuss with the URIBL team about
their plans but if renamed, we would mimic the meta rules with a
duplicated DEPRECATED rule such as we are doing for
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO right now.
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, Thom van der Boon wrote:
> One example is that our IRS ("Belastingdienst") is whitelisted by the following rule:
>
> whitelist_from_spf *@belastingdienst.nl
That configuration syntax will continue to be supported for at least one
year after the release of SA 4.0 (i.e. it will not be dropped before the
first release occurring after that year has passed).
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1969 the technology to fake a Moon landing didn't exist,
but the technology to actually land there did.
Today, it is the opposite. -- unknown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today: the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Thom van der Boon <th...@vdb.nl>.
Dear Kevin,
I maintain a rule set specificly targeted at the Dutch language: [ https://dutchspamassassinrules.nl/DSR/DSR.cf | https://dutchspamassassinrules.nl/DSR/DSR.cf ]
One example is that our IRS ("Belastingdienst") is whitelisted by the following rule:
whitelist_from_spf *@belastingdienst.nl
Our IRS ("Belastingdienst") uses DKIM, SPF and DMARC, so fake messages are extremely easy to detect.
This list (DSR) is used by a number of mailservers in the Netherlands. So the changes that were made. will impact all servers that use the DSR
Met vriendelijke groet, Best regards,
Thom van der Boon
E-Mail: thom@vdb.nl
Van: "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>
Aan: "Thom van der Boon" <th...@vdb.nl>
Cc: "SA Mailing list" <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>, "SpamAssassin Devel List" <de...@spamassassin.apache.org>
Verzonden: Zondag 19 juli 2020 19:56:34
Onderwerp: Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in process of being Renamed
We only publish one set of rules so you will see that become welcome instead of white. If you are using a modern day 3.4.3 or greater, you can likely prepare for the changes now by adding both to meta rules. Can you show an example of your dependency?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 13:06 Thom van der Boon < [ mailto:thom@vdb.nl | thom@vdb.nl ] > wrote:
Dear Kevin,
Could you please clearify what versions are affected in these changes?
My own rules rely heavily on whitelist_from_spf
Met vriendelijke groet, Best regards,
Thom van der Boon
E-Mail: [ mailto:thom@vdb.nl | thom@vdb.nl ]
Van: "Kevin A. McGrail" < [ mailto:kmcgrail@apache.org | kmcgrail@apache.org ] >
Aan: "SA Mailing list" < [ mailto:users@spamassassin.apache.org | users@spamassassin.apache.org ] >, "SpamAssassin Devel List" < [ mailto:dev@spamassassin.apache.org | dev@spamassassin.apache.org ] >
Verzonden: Zondag 19 juli 2020 18:09:36
Onderwerp: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in process of being Renamed
All:
As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards compatibility.
Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
will become welcomelist and blacklist will become blocklist. More
changes will be coming for this with these small changes in the stock
ruleset.
Apologies for the disruption and thanks to those who are reporting
issues as we work through the changes.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
[ https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail | https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail ] - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in process of being Renamed
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
>> The bug report that introduced this change claimed 100% backward
>> compatability for at least one year, later changed to until 4.0 came out,
>> whenever that will be.
>
> You're misreading that. Backwards compatibility in the code will be
> maintained for at least one year after the 4.0 release,
Sorry about misreading that.
It's a shame that there is no requirement for backward compatability BEFORE
the 4.0 release. Whenever that comes out.
Loren
RE: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in process of being Renamed
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
>> You go shut your piehole!!!!
Ehhh, who exactly? Having a nice evening with a vodka bottle? ;)
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net>.
You go shut your piehole!!!!
Woke white guys who know best about racism against blacks and who use a
domain name that insults native Americans have spoken!!!
Black people and people of color need to go sit down and shut up while
woke white guys who know best for them do what is best for them.
Ted
PS Just be happy they haven't renamed the program "spamstopper" because
the name Assassin isn't I CAVE-approved (although icave
disbanded when the woke people who hated warner brothers succeeded in
getting Bugs Bunny off the air...was replaced by a bunch of other
splinter groups)
Have sympathy for them it's really tiring to be so woke....<eyeroll>
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 20200719 18:02:18, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Loren Wilton wrote:
>
>>> In other words, support both "black" and "block", and "white" and "welcome",
>>> for at least 3 months, I suggest.
>>
>> The bug report that introduced this change claimed 100% backward compatability
>> for at least one year, later changed to until 4.0 came out, whenever that will
>> be.
>
> You're misreading that. Backwards compatibility in the code will be maintained
> for at least one year after the 4.0 release, when the code changes take effect,
> and would not be removed until 4.1 is released if it has not been released by
> that point (which is unlikely - 4.0 and 4.1 released within one year?). So if
> 4.1 was released within a year of 4.0, it would include backwards compatibility
> and that would remain until at least 4.2
>
> Unfortunately some rule name changes are making it out ahead of the 4.0 release.
> We're working on addressing this, it should be a temporary condition.
Am I granted an "I told you so?" The results coming out of this betray a
breathtaking level of arrogance and overt racism.
{o.o}
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Loren Wilton wrote:
>> In other words, support both "black" and "block", and "white" and
>> "welcome", for at least 3 months, I suggest.
>
> The bug report that introduced this change claimed 100% backward
> compatability for at least one year, later changed to until 4.0 came out,
> whenever that will be.
You're misreading that. Backwards compatibility in the code will be
maintained for at least one year after the 4.0 release, when the code
changes take effect, and would not be removed until 4.1 is released if
it has not been released by that point (which is unlikely - 4.0 and 4.1
released within one year?). So if 4.1 was released within a year of 4.0,
it would include backwards compatibility and that would remain until at
least 4.2
Unfortunately some rule name changes are making it out ahead of the 4.0
release. We're working on addressing this, it should be a temporary
condition.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1969 the technology to fake a Moon landing didn't exist,
but the technology to actually land there did.
Today, it is the opposite. -- unknown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow: the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in process of being Renamed
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> In other words, support both "black" and "block", and "white" and
> "welcome",
> for at least 3 months, I suggest.
The bug report that introduced this change claimed 100% backward
compatability for at least one year, later changed to until 4.0 came out,
whenever that will be.
Of course it doesn't actually work that way, as you have observed. But that
is just your problem, not SA's, as you can determine from this thread.
Loren
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in process of being Renamed
Posted by Antony Stone <An...@spamassassin.open.source.it>.
On Sunday 19 July 2020 at 19:56:34, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> We only publish one set of rules so you will see that become welcome
> instead of white.
My feeling on this is that such a breaking change requires a fairly lengthy
backward-compatible transition period (with appropriate warning messages for
those still using the old terminology, but not such that it no longer works),
rather than just switching over suddenly from "old" to "new" with no "dual
use" interim period.
In other words, support both "black" and "block", and "white" and "welcome",
for at least 3 months, I suggest.
Antony.
--
What do you call a dinosaur with only one eye? A Doyouthinkesaurus.
Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
We only publish one set of rules so you will see that become welcome
instead of white. If you are using a modern day 3.4.3 or greater, you can
likely prepare for the changes now by adding both to meta rules. Can you
show an example of your dependency?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 13:06 Thom van der Boon <th...@vdb.nl> wrote:
> Dear Kevin,
>
> Could you please clearify what versions are affected in these changes?
>
> My own rules rely heavily on whitelist_from_spf
>
> Met vriendelijke groet, Best regards,
>
>
> Thom van der Boon
> E-Mail: thom@vdb.nl
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *Van: *"Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>
> *Aan: *"SA Mailing list" <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>, "SpamAssassin
> Devel List" <de...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> *Verzonden: *Zondag 19 juli 2020 18:09:36
> *Onderwerp: *IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST
> in process of being Renamed
>
> All:
>
> As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
> WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards compatibility.
>
> Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
> USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
> SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
>
> If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
> references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
>
> In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
> will become welcomelist and blacklist will become blocklist. More
> changes will be coming for this with these small changes in the stock
> ruleset.
> Apologies for the disruption and thanks to those who are reporting
> issues as we work through the changes.
>
> Regards,
> KAM
>
> --
>
> Kevin A. McGrail
> KMcGrail@Apache.org
>
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
We only publish one set of rules so you will see that become welcome
instead of white. If you are using a modern day 3.4.3 or greater, you can
likely prepare for the changes now by adding both to meta rules. Can you
show an example of your dependency?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 13:06 Thom van der Boon <th...@vdb.nl> wrote:
> Dear Kevin,
>
> Could you please clearify what versions are affected in these changes?
>
> My own rules rely heavily on whitelist_from_spf
>
> Met vriendelijke groet, Best regards,
>
>
> Thom van der Boon
> E-Mail: thom@vdb.nl
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *Van: *"Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>
> *Aan: *"SA Mailing list" <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>, "SpamAssassin
> Devel List" <de...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> *Verzonden: *Zondag 19 juli 2020 18:09:36
> *Onderwerp: *IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST
> in process of being Renamed
>
> All:
>
> As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
> WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards compatibility.
>
> Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
> USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
> SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
>
> If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
> references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
>
> In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
> will become welcomelist and blacklist will become blocklist. More
> changes will be coming for this with these small changes in the stock
> ruleset.
> Apologies for the disruption and thanks to those who are reporting
> issues as we work through the changes.
>
> Regards,
> KAM
>
> --
>
> Kevin A. McGrail
> KMcGrail@Apache.org
>
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Thom van der Boon <th...@vdb.nl>.
Dear Kevin,
Could you please clearify what versions are affected in these changes?
My own rules rely heavily on whitelist_from_spf
Met vriendelijke groet, Best regards,
Thom van der Boon
E-Mail: thom@vdb.nl
Van: "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>
Aan: "SA Mailing list" <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>, "SpamAssassin Devel List" <de...@spamassassin.apache.org>
Verzonden: Zondag 19 juli 2020 18:09:36
Onderwerp: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in process of being Renamed
All:
As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards compatibility.
Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
will become welcomelist and blacklist will become blocklist. More
changes will be coming for this with these small changes in the stock
ruleset.
Apologies for the disruption and thanks to those who are reporting
issues as we work through the changes.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Philipp Ewald <ph...@digionline.de>.
ah sorry i wrote that totally wrong...
i mean we have "whitelist_from" setting.
should i change that to "welcomelist_from" or to "welcome_from", because when changing from "whitelist" to "welcomelist" should "welcomelist_from" be "right" but "welcome_from" sounds better.
So my second question is about how to automatically change that in configuration files?
> sed -i 's/whitelist/welcomelist/g'
Am 20.07.20 um 13:54 schrieb Marc Roos:
>
> What is being used for mail that is not welcome, but still needs to be
> allowed thru?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST
> in process of being Renamed
>
> can we use something like that or is there any special edit necessary?
>
> sed -i 's/whitelist/welcomelist/g' $CONFIG
>
> my setting "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from" || "welcome_from"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Am 19.07.20 um 18:09 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
>> All:
>>
>> As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
>> WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards compatibility.
>>
>> Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
>> USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
>> SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
>>
>> If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
>> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
>> references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
>>
>> In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
>> will become welcomelist and blacklist will become blocklist. More
>> changes will be coming for this with these small changes in the stock
>> ruleset.
>> Apologies for the disruption and thanks to those who are reporting
>> issues as we work through the changes.
>>
>> Regards,
>> KAM
>>
>
>
--
Philipp Ewald
Administrator
DigiOnline GmbH, Probsteigasse 15 - 19, 50670 Köln
Telefon: +49 221 6500-532, Fax: +49 221 6500-690, E-Mail: philipp.ewald@digionline.de
AG Köln HRB 27711, St.-Nr. 5215 5811 0640
Geschäftsführer: Werner Grafenhain
Informationen zum Datenschutz: www.digionline.de/ds
RE: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in process of being Renamed
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
What is being used for mail that is not welcome, but still needs to be
allowed thru?
-----Original Message-----
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST
in process of being Renamed
can we use something like that or is there any special edit necessary?
sed -i 's/whitelist/welcomelist/g' $CONFIG
my setting "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from" || "welcome_from"?
Thanks
Am 19.07.20 um 18:09 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
> All:
>
> As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
> WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards compatibility.
>
> Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
> USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
> SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
>
> If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
> references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
>
> In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
> will become welcomelist and blacklist will become blocklist. More
> changes will be coming for this with these small changes in the stock
> ruleset.
> Apologies for the disruption and thanks to those who are reporting
> issues as we work through the changes.
>
> Regards,
> KAM
>
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Philipp Ewald <ph...@digionline.de>.
can we use something like that or is there any special edit necessary?
sed -i 's/whitelist/welcomelist/g' $CONFIG
my setting "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from" || "welcome_from"?
Thanks
Am 19.07.20 um 18:09 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
> All:
>
> As of today, the configuration option WHITELIST_TO has been renamed
> WELCOMELIST_TO with an alias for backwards compatibility.
>
> Additionally, the rule USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO has been renamed to
> USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO to assist those running older versions of
> SpamAssassin get stock rulesets.
>
> If you have custom scoring or any custom rules building on
> USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO, please accept our apologies and change the
> references to USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO.
>
> In order to remove racially charged configuration options, whitelist
> will become welcomelist and blacklist will become blocklist. More
> changes will be coming for this with these small changes in the stock
> ruleset.
> Apologies for the disruption and thanks to those who are reporting
> issues as we work through the changes.
>
> Regards,
> KAM
>
--
Philipp Ewald
Administrator
DigiOnline GmbH, Probsteigasse 15 - 19, 50670 Köln
Telefon: +49 221 6500-532, Fax: +49 221 6500-690, E-Mail: philipp.ewald@digionline.de
AG Köln HRB 27711, St.-Nr. 5215 5811 0640
Geschäftsführer: Werner Grafenhain
Informationen zum Datenschutz: www.digionline.de/ds
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Matthias Rieber <ma...@zu-con.org>.
Hello,
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> > i got the warning at the daily 12:30 AM lint today as well and as said
> > that started long *after that* thread
>
> If you are running ruleset 1880040 and you are running spamassassin
> --lint and getting an error, please post the error and the version of SA
> you are using.
I still get the following warning/error message:
Jul 20 16:48:07.671 [5757] warn: rules: error: unknown eval 'check_to_in_whitelist' for USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
the ruleset is 1880040 and I am using Spamassassin version 3.4.2 (latest
version in Debian Jessie). The custom rules don't contain any whitelist
rules. Is it supposed to work with this version without warning or error
messages?
Best regards,
Matthias
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 19.07.20 um 18:58 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> Am 19.07.20 um 18:47 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
>>
>>> i got the warning at the daily 12:30 AM lint today as well and as said
>>> that started long *after that* thread
>>
>> If you are running ruleset 1880040 and you are running spamassassin
>> --lint and getting an error, please post the error and the version of SA
>> you are using.
>
> only god knows why i have 1879934 instead 1880040 and you first should
> get your homework done which means a proper QA and a way at least push
> fixes caused by non-working QA in a timely manner
wow - today 1880040 arrived - it was a long way
Jul 20 12:30:03.365 [188803] warn: rules: error: unknown eval
'check_to_in_whitelist' for USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
20-Jul-2020 11:06:00: SpamAssassin: Update processed successfully
[root@mail-gw:/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004004]$ head
updates_spamassassin_org.cf
# UPDATE version 1880040
-------------------
yeah, instances which are intended *only* for bayes and have anything
else disabled to just check if the corpus still get properly scored bail out
and that's why you guys have no cue what useless changes may trigger in
the reality of all the setups out there, most not subscirbed to any
maling-list
meta USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO 0
-------------------
[root@mail-gw:~]$ su -c "/usr/bin/spamassassin
--siteconfigpath=/etc/mail/spamassassin-debug --lint" - sa-milt
Jul 20 12:33:50.391 [189250] warn: rules: error: unknown eval
'check_to_in_whitelist' for USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
[root@mail-gw:~]$ su -c "/usr/bin/spamassassin
--siteconfigpath=/etc/mail/spamassassin-debug --lint" - sa-milt
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
> i got the warning at the daily 12:30 AM lint today as well and as said
> that started long *after that* thread
If you are running ruleset 1880040 and you are running spamassassin
--lint and getting an error, please post the error and the version of SA
you are using.
> frankly where i start to puke is "WHITELIST_TO" and
> "USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO" are renamed, it obviously affects users running
> *stable releases* and you guys are not capable to rename every
> appareance of BLACKLIST and WHITELIST at the same time
It's a balance of trying to support some of the older installs and the
new changes. We'll dial it in and appreciate the feedback on getting
the changes to work. Really immune to any complaints about the overall
changes though. They are coming and complaining about it is a waste of
your time.
> meta CUST_SHORTCIRCUIT1 (ALL_TRUSTED || USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO ||
> USER_IN_WHITELIST || USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST || USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST)
> score USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST -100.0
> score USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST -100.0
On your local version, if you add a score USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMLIST -100.0
which does not exist yet, you should get just a warning. If so,
changing that one meta and those two scores preemptively will prepare
you for the change.
e.g. meta CUST_SHORTCIRCUIT1 (ALL_TRUSTED || USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO ||
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST || USER_IN_WHITELIST || ...
I think you said you were on fedora 3.4.4, so please let me know.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
> i got the warning at the daily 12:30 AM lint today as well and as said
> that started long *after that* thread
If you are running ruleset 1880040 and you are running spamassassin
--lint and getting an error, please post the error and the version of SA
you are using.
> frankly where i start to puke is "WHITELIST_TO" and
> "USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO" are renamed, it obviously affects users running
> *stable releases* and you guys are not capable to rename every
> appareance of BLACKLIST and WHITELIST at the same time
It's a balance of trying to support some of the older installs and the
new changes. We'll dial it in and appreciate the feedback on getting
the changes to work. Really immune to any complaints about the overall
changes though. They are coming and complaining about it is a waste of
your time.
> meta CUST_SHORTCIRCUIT1 (ALL_TRUSTED || USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO ||
> USER_IN_WHITELIST || USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST || USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST)
> score USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST -100.0
> score USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST -100.0
On your local version, if you add a score USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMLIST -100.0
which does not exist yet, you should get just a warning. If so,
changing that one meta and those two scores preemptively will prepare
you for the change.
e.g. meta CUST_SHORTCIRCUIT1 (ALL_TRUSTED || USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO ||
USER_IN_WELCOMELIST || USER_IN_WHITELIST || ...
I think you said you were on fedora 3.4.4, so please let me know.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
> are you guys crazy doing that to *existing* stable installs and what
> does that mean for setups with "warn: rules: error: unknown eval
> 'check_to_in_whitelist' for USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO"
I've heard back from testers using 3.3.1 to 3.4.2 that the issue is
resolved re: the eval or unknown rule for descriptions.
The issue this morning is dealing with local rescoring or local rules
that use rules that are being renamed in stock ruleset. Do you have any
local rescoring or local rules built on *WHITELIST* or *BLACKLIST*? If
not, the issue should be minor.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Rules referencing WHITELIST or BLACKLIST in
process of being Renamed
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
> are you guys crazy doing that to *existing* stable installs and what
> does that mean for setups with "warn: rules: error: unknown eval
> 'check_to_in_whitelist' for USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO"
I've heard back from testers using 3.3.1 to 3.4.2 that the issue is
resolved re: the eval or unknown rule for descriptions.
The issue this morning is dealing with local rescoring or local rules
that use rules that are being renamed in stock ruleset. Do you have any
local rescoring or local rules built on *WHITELIST* or *BLACKLIST*? If
not, the issue should be minor.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171