You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2004/07/09 20:15:36 UTC

Re: SQL userpref table - thoughts...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


hey Tim --

it should definitely be in BZ ;)   I'll let the SQL wizards comment.

- --j.

Tim Bishop writes:
> (Should this RFE be put into bugzilla?)
> 
> I'm building a spamassassin 3.0 installation in my organisation, and as
> part of that I need to allow my users to easily update their
> configuration (which I've stored in an SQL database). I realise there's
> some web-based offerings out there, but I wanted a command-line based
> tool with more functionality.
> 
> My sticky point has come when dealing with rules in the usepref table.
> They look something like this:
> 
> preference	value
> describe	RULE1 a description
> score		RULE1 1.2
> 
> A quick look through the spamassassin code notes that the SQL parsing
> does something similar to this for each row:
> 
> "preference \t value \n"
> 
> and joins them all together.
> 
> This means it's relatively trivial to parse the strings in the same way
> that the existing code parses the text-based configuration files.
> 
> However, when working with this table directly with SQL (particularly
> when it comes to updating - pulling data out is straightforward) I'm
> having difficulty with the fact that there are multiple "describe"
> preferences. The only way to differentiate them is by looking at the
> start of the value field.
> 
> There are bound to be kludges round this, but a neat solution, I feel,
> would be to do something like this:
> 
> preference	name	value
> describe	RULE1	a description
> score		RULE1	1.2
> required_score		5.0
> 
> Looking at this from a SpamAssassin point of view the changes required
> to do this would be purely in the Conf/SQL.pm, which is quite self
> contained. Granted it would break existing tools which access this, but
> 3.0 seems like a good enough time to do it.
> 
> Any thoughts on doing this? I'm happy to work on a patch.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFA7uDIQTcbUG5Y7woRAk/RAJ9ex8p8ehAX+jcWCxerE5zjyqXqVgCgrLVw
BQVYWfF/kr6PX/w2lDoamOI=
=tiM5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----