You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2006/02/03 02:29:15 UTC
[Bug 4778] New: Rule type plugins
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
Summary: Rule type plugins
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P5
Component: Plugins
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: jgmyers@proofpoint.com
Enhancement to make it easier for plugins to define new rule types. Probably
move the existing rule types to plugins.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jgmyers@proofpoint.com 2006-07-21 01:37 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> Q1: What about user rule score overrides? Are you counting that as a user rule
> with the same name as a system rule?
Score overrides of system rule would be allowed, but priority changes probably
would not. Changing tflags multiple would not be allowed, possibly no tflags
changes would be allowed.
If allow_user_rules is off, then we could do the zero-score checks at config
time instead of per message.
> Q2: What if someone does make a user rule that happens to have the same name as
> a system rule, either because they don't know the names of all system rules, or
> the new sa_update adds a rule with the same name as a user rule?
The system rule would win. This should probably cause a lint error.
Separate namespaces wouldn't work. If the user config tries to set the score
for a rule, does it affect the user rule or the system rule?
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2006-11-09 13:50 -------
John -- have you made any progress on this since the WIP?
I'm keen to start getting 3.2.0 into releaseable shape, and I also have a very
fast version of body tests using re2c, sitting in a branch. it'd be great to
have a "clean" rule-types-as-plugins API for that to use...
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
jgmyers@proofpoint.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #3356 is|0 |1
obsolete| |
------- Additional Comments From jgmyers@proofpoint.com 2006-07-12 16:10 -------
Created an attachment (id=3575)
--> (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3575&action=view)
Updated work in progress
Here is what I have so far. I haven't worked on it for a while.
The next problem to solve is the RepaceTags plugin, which currently reaches in
and mucks with the internal representation of the current implementaion of rule
types. I believe the rule type plugins which use regexes need to call_plugins
to a newly defined hook which will allow ReplaceTags to modify the regex.
I'd like to get my dispute with Michael Parker resolved before doing any more
work in this area. Perhaps a design meeting at CEAS?
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2006-07-21 08:55 -------
+1, agreed with what John said in comment 11.
in fact, there's a good point there: we should document clearly in the Conf POD
as to which score/tflags/etc. changes are permitted in user prefs, since some
changes may have unexpected results, even in current code.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2006-07-20 21:30 -------
I definitely cannot see a need for user rules to have the same names as system
ones. However getting rid of user rules -- I'm afraid I'm not fond of that idea ;)
I'd be fine with dropping the "required head/body points" stuff.
+1 on the "only_these_rules" idea, makes sense.
Sounds good!
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jgmyers@proofpoint.com 2006-02-03 03:09 -------
Created an attachment (id=3356)
--> (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3356&action=view)
nonfunctional concept code
This is a not-yet-working stab at moving the "body" rule type into a plugin.
do_body_tests() has not yet been moved into the plugin. I also need to figure
out a generic way to deal with user_rules_to_compile, head_only_points,
body_only_points, and a few other loose ends.
Basically, the idea is that rule type plugins are responsible for:
* Registering their tests with define_test
* Storing their own test definitions
* Obtaining any data needed to evaluate their tests
* Evaluating their tests when called through check_priority
Rule type plugins may ignore priority when appropriate. For example, the meta
type plugin may evaluate a test when all its dependencies are met and DNS type
plugins may evaluate a test when all its DNS responses arrive.
There is no eval type plugin, but there is a core eval test subsystem that can
be used by rule type plugins.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
jm@jmason.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO| |4776
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2006-07-09 17:36 -------
noting cross-bug dependency
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jgmyers@proofpoint.com 2006-11-09 14:48 -------
I was waiting for you to finish bug 4776 before digging into this. I was also
waiting for Daniel to remove the non-performing eval tests.
I'll have to schedule some time to dig into this, but I've got about a month's
worth of other projects in my queue.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2006-10-09 11:13 -------
any news on this? I'd be interested in collaborating, as it provides a good API
for the work I'm doing in the re2c branch to override body rules in mainline SA
from a plugin.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From lwilton@earthlink.net 2006-02-03 06:12 -------
Please DO NOT forget about allow-user-rules. Done properly it should be
possible to preserve the base rule set and create multiple overlays (much like
C++ subclasses) that can be activated when the particular user runs. If the
particular user has no rules of his own, the base rules can be used without
modification, other than possibly the score values.
One might ideally want to consider being able to compile individual user's
rules once on the first time they process a mail, and then cache and retrieve
the precompiled rules for subsequent mails, unless the rules change in the
intervening time. If not thought through from the start this can get into the
sort of mess that has now and then shown up with caching various user option
configurations, and having one pollute another.
I see no inherent reason that allowing user rules should result in recompiling
the entire ruleset on every email processed.
In response to Comment #1, it might be good if calling into a plugin to
evaluate one or more rules at priority N returned the next lower priority at
which there was a runnable rule. This could help the rule driver make
intellegent calls into the various plugins.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From lwilton@earthlink.net 2006-07-21 00:56 -------
> I definitely cannot see a need for user rules to have the same names
> as system ones.
Q1: What about user rule score overrides? Are you counting that as a user rule
with the same name as a system rule?
Q2: What if someone does make a user rule that happens to have the same name as
a system rule, either because they don't know the names of all system rules, or
the new sa_update adds a rule with the same name as a user rule?
Treat them as separate rules (separate namespaces)?
Give a syntax error, possibly on a rule that has worked for years until SA
added a new rule with the same name?
Quietly ignore the user rule?
> However getting rid of user rules -- I'm afraid I'm not fond of that idea ;)
Let me just say that it would be understatement to say I wouldn't be fond of
the idea.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From maddoc@maddoc.net 2006-10-09 13:54 -------
-0600 CDT which included Austin. TX. 8*))
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jgmyers@proofpoint.com 2006-07-20 17:24 -------
Notes from a meeting between Michael Parker, Danial Quinlan, and myself:
* Rule type plugins will return code for evaluating the test and calling
got_hit. check will concatenate and eval this returned code, much like the
existing do_*_tests code does.
* Rule type plugins can store information in the PerMsgStatus.
* We want to reduce the effect that user tests have on the whole mechanism (if
not remove support for user tests entirely). This may require restrictions such
as prohibiting user tests from having the same name as system rules.
* The "required head/body points" part of autolearn will require rule type
plugins to declare whether each test is header/body. Is this facility of
autolear needed?
* To simplify the rules mechanism, the "only_these_rules" feature of mass-check
can probably be reimplemented to assign zero scores to those rules it doesn't want.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jgmyers@proofpoint.com 2006-02-03 02:51 -------
In response to comment 2 of bug 4776, one would prioritize rules across classes
by doing multiple calls into the rule class plugins, most likely one call per
priority.
Meta rules can track their own dependencies, so there is really no need for meta
rules to themselves track priorities. Each call into the meta rule type plugin
would evaluate those rules whose dependencies have been met.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2006-07-12 14:14 -------
btw, this would be an ideal way to allow people to work on alternative
"backends" for rule types, too; for example, code which used the trie-optimized
regexp interpreter new in perl 5.9.2, could use an alternative backend for the
"body" rule type.
I really quite like this idea. Is anyone working on it these days?
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2006-07-13 22:58 -------
a design meeting at CEAS would be cool -- although it'd be just you guys, I
won't be there ;)
what about an IRC conference some time?
also, a ReplaceTags regexp-rewriting plugin API makes sense.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2006-10-09 13:37 -------
hey, I would if I was there ;)
are you on IRC? how many hours off UTC is Austin?
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 4778] Rule type plugins
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4778
------- Additional Comments From parkerm@pobox.com 2006-10-09 11:43 -------
I'm attempting to work on the Check plugin stuff at the Hackathon which doesn't
necessarily gate this but will make it much easier. Come join me :)
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.