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...@issues.apache.org on 2010/06/10 15:08:06 UTC
[Bug 6448] New: Two rules matching "No prescription needed"
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
Summary: Two rules matching "No prescription needed"
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.3.1
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Rules
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: Bowie_Bailey@buc.com
72_active.cf:
body FB_NO_SCRIP_NEEDED /No.{1,10}P(?:er|re)scr[i1]pt[i1][o0]n
(?:needed|requ[1i]re)/i
20_drugs.cf:
body NO_PRESCRIPTION
/no.{1,10}P(?:er|re)scription.{1,10}(?:needed|require|necessary)/i
These two rules are matching almost exactly the same thing. Should they be
merged into a single rule?
Maybe something like this:
/no.{1,10}P(?:er|re)scr[i1]pt[i1][o0]n.{1,10}(?:needed|requ[i1]re|necessary)/i
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6448] Two rules matching "No prescription needed"
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kmcgrail@pccc.com
--- Comment #1 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2010-06-10 13:16:56 EDT ---
At the end of the day, with regexp's there are often going to be duplicate
rules that aren't worth the time to consolidate.
Unless it's causing a FP, I'd recommend this is closed as WONTFIX
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6448] Two rules matching "No prescription needed"
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
Henrik Krohns <he...@hege.li> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Henrik Krohns <he...@hege.li> 2011-05-11 04:28:47 UTC ---
Update rules performs identical in mass checks.
Trunk:
Sending rules/20_drugs.cf
Sending rules/50_scores.cf
Sending rulesrc/10_force_active.cf
Sending rulesrc/sandbox/emailed/00_FVGT_File001.cf
Sending rulesrc/sandbox/hege/20_bug6448.cf
Transmitting file data .....
Committed revision 1101743.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6448] Two rules matching "No prescription needed"
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
Henrik Krohns <he...@hege.li> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hege@hege.li
--- Comment #4 from Henrik Krohns <he...@hege.li> 2011-05-01 21:54:20 UTC ---
Testing Matt's rule in mass checks. Pointless having bugs like this hanging
around.
Adding 20_bug6448.cf
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 1098417.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6448] Two rules matching "No prescription needed"
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
Bowie <Bo...@buc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Bowie_Bailey@buc.com
--- Comment #3 from Bowie <Bo...@buc.com> 2010-06-11 08:45:25 EDT ---
I'm not aware of any false positives. I just noticed this while scanning
through the rule hits on a spam message.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6448] Two rules matching "No prescription needed"
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P2 |P4
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.3.2
OS/Version|Linux |All
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6448] Two rules matching "No prescription needed"
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mkettler_sa@verizon.net
--- Comment #2 from Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net> 2010-06-10 23:19:19 EDT ---
Personally, I think it is foolish for us to have redundant rules in the
ruleset. Lack of a FP may change the urgency, but we're still wasting CPU time,
which is a bug.
I suspect the intent was for the FB rule to eventually replace the original. I
say this because it is very obvious the FB rule is derived from some version of
drugs.cf one.
I propose merging to a single rule, with a little more anti-obfu added:
/N[o0].{1,10}P(?:er|re)scr[i1]pt[i1][o0]n.{1,10}(?:n[e3][e3]d[e3]d|requ[1i]re|n[e3]c[e3]ssary)/i
Testing required of course, but this should cover all cases of both rules.
That said, with no FP, I would consider this low priority. If it is causing FPs
then we probably need to get this one fixed quickly.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.