Re: Sought dedicated AND stock channel

[Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>]

 On 8/11/2010 6:15 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> The problem is, that not only the sub-rules change, but with them the
> actually scored meta rules, combining these sub-rules by OR-ing them.
>
> That means, stale meta rules in stock will override the fresh meta
> rules, effectively discarding all fresh sub-rule matches.
>
>
> Bottom line: If the dedicated sought channel is more up-to-date and
> updated more frequently, using that one in *addition* to (faster) aging
> stock rules currently needs careful hacks -- to preserver the precious
> meta.
>
> Or, well, any SA or channel provided method, to tweak the order. SA
> method would be a new feature. Channel method would be a rename, to come
> last in alphabetical order.
>
> Bummer. :(  This is a real problem and worth filing a bug.

Would it be a reasonable idea to always read the updates channel first
and then read any additional channels?  Or maybe have sa-update store
the updates channel as 0_updates_ so it should always be first in the list?

-- 
Bowie

Re: Sought dedicated AND stock channel

[Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>]

 On 8/12/2010 11:41 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>  On 8/11/2010 6:15 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>> The problem is, that not only the sub-rules change, but with them the
>>> actually scored meta rules, combining these sub-rules by OR-ing them.
>>>
>>> That means, stale meta rules in stock will override the fresh meta
>>> rules, effectively discarding all fresh sub-rule matches.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bottom line: If the dedicated sought channel is more up-to-date and
>>> updated more frequently, using that one in *addition* to (faster) aging
>>> stock rules currently needs careful hacks -- to preserver the precious
>>> meta.
>>>
>>> Or, well, any SA or channel provided method, to tweak the order. SA
>>> method would be a new feature. Channel method would be a rename, to come
>>> last in alphabetical order.
>>>
>>> Bummer. :(  This is a real problem and worth filing a bug.
> On 12.08.10 09:13, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> Would it be a reasonable idea to always read the updates channel first
>> and then read any additional channels?
> would couse troubles if you sa-updated only official rules channel.

Why?  What I was suggesting was this:

1) read updates_spamassassin_org.cf
2) read any other .cf files in the directory

If all you have is the official updates channel, then #2 doesn't apply.

>>  Or maybe have sa-update store
>> the updates channel as 0_updates_ so it should always be first in the list?
> from my point of view, including JM_* rules into SA updates was a bad idea.

I think it is good to be able to include those rules for people who
don't bother looking for the 3rd party rule sets.  However it does cause
problems for people who want to use the official Sought channel.

Also, giving the rules a 0 score kind of defeats the purpose of
including them in the updates channel.  If it requires custom score
lines to enable the rules, you might as well just take them out of the
updates channel and let people enable the rules by adding the Sought
channel instead.

-- 
Bowie

Re: Sought dedicated AND stock channel

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>]

>  On 8/11/2010 6:15 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > The problem is, that not only the sub-rules change, but with them the
> > actually scored meta rules, combining these sub-rules by OR-ing them.
> >
> > That means, stale meta rules in stock will override the fresh meta
> > rules, effectively discarding all fresh sub-rule matches.
> >
> >
> > Bottom line: If the dedicated sought channel is more up-to-date and
> > updated more frequently, using that one in *addition* to (faster) aging
> > stock rules currently needs careful hacks -- to preserver the precious
> > meta.
> >
> > Or, well, any SA or channel provided method, to tweak the order. SA
> > method would be a new feature. Channel method would be a rename, to come
> > last in alphabetical order.
> >
> > Bummer. :(  This is a real problem and worth filing a bug.

On 12.08.10 09:13, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Would it be a reasonable idea to always read the updates channel first
> and then read any additional channels?

would couse troubles if you sa-updated only official rules channel.

>  Or maybe have sa-update store
> the updates channel as 0_updates_ so it should always be first in the list?

from my point of view, including JM_* rules into SA updates was a bad idea.

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Boost your system's speed by 500% - DEL C:\WINDOWS\*.*