You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com> on 2016/02/25 17:02:01 UTC
CALL FOR HELP: Rules UPDATE version 1732039 *may* be broken
I haven't had much time for analysis of this yet and likely will not
today , but last night's update is missing a number of 'describe' lines
(e.g. TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY, TVD_FROM_1) previously in 72_active.cf.
Someone with more than 10 minutes to spare today and clues about the
rules update process should look into this.
Re: Rules UPDATE version 1732039 IS BROKEN
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 25.02.2016 um 19:25 schrieb John Hardin:
>>> If that's indeed the cause, I'm surprised that masscheck proceeded
>>> in the
>>> face of a failed lint and that an error in one standalone rule
>>> affected a
>>> bunch of totally unrelated rules...
>>
>> Hmmm, well, I guess a big enough problem won't fail lint:
>>
>> bigsky:spamassassin root# ls -l
>> 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 0 Feb 25 04:29
>> 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>>
>> That's what backups are for. :)
>> (Subject revised)
>
> Ugh.
>
> Would you file a bug so that we don't lose track of this? Thanks
tonight sa-update on all Fedora systems failed
*where* do it suddenly want write permissions?
Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw sa-update.cron: config: warning: description
exists for non-existent rule EXCUSE_24
Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw sa-update.cron: channel: lint check of update
failed, channel failed
Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw sa-update.cron: 26-Feb-2016 01:41:53:
SpamAssassin: Update available, but download or extract failed
Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw systemd: sa-update.service: main process exited,
code=exited, status=4/NOPERMISSION
Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw systemd: Unit sa-update.service entered failed
state.
Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw systemd: sa-update.service failed.
Re: Rules UPDATE version 1732039 IS BROKEN
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2016, at 11:42, John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
>>
>> > I haven't had much time for analysis of this yet and likely will not
>> > today , but last night's update is missing a number of 'describe' lines
>> > (e.g. TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY, TVD_FROM_1) previously in 72_active.cf.
>> >
>> > Someone with more than 10 minutes to spare today and clues about the
>> > rules update process should look into this.
>>
>> That may be due to an error in a rule change commit I made. If so, the
>> next update (tonight) will fix it.
>>
>> If that's indeed the cause, I'm surprised that masscheck proceeded in the
>> face of a failed lint and that an error in one standalone rule affected a
>> bunch of totally unrelated rules...
>
> Hmmm, well, I guess a big enough problem won't fail lint:
>
> bigsky:spamassassin root# ls -l 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 0 Feb 25 04:29 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>
> That's what backups are for. :)
> (Subject revised)
Ugh.
Would you file a bug so that we don't lose track of this? Thanks.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Peterson is like that: you expect at least a pseudological
argument, but instead you get the weird ramblings of a woman with
the critical thinking abilities of an 18th century peasant. -- Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 days since the first successful real return to launch site (SpaceX)
Re: Rules UPDATE version 1732039 IS BROKEN
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
On 2/26/2016 9:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 26.02.2016 um 15:44 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
>> On 2/26/2016 9:11 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 26.02.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
>>>> Restored a backup yesterday to get the 72_active.cf file back. Rule
>>>> updates from the saupdate run at about midnight updated everything
>>>> and I
>>>> don't see any 0-length files this time
>>>
>>> interesting - i had no zero-bytes-file yesterday
>>>
>>> in fact rule update tonight failed on every machine, see my other
>>> response to this topic and the question what changed that it failed
>>> for the first time on Fedora 22 as well as Fedora 23 machines
>>>
>>> Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw sa-update.cron: 26-Feb-2016 01:41:53:
>>> SpamAssassin: Update available, but download or extract failed
>>> Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw systemd: sa-update.service: main process
>>> exited, code=exited, status=4/NOPERMISSION
>>>
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 250K 2016-02-25 00:38
>>> /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>>>
>>
>> I'm running SA 3.4.1 on CentOS 6.
>>
>> I had a 0-byte 72_active.cf file yesterday from update 1732039. Last
>> night, it updated to 1732263 with no problems whatsoever. I have no
>> idea why it would fail for you unless you did something that would
>> affect the permissions of those directories. I am assuming
>> "4/NOPERMISSION" refers to file permissions, but I don't know for sure.
>>
>> Did you get update 1732039 yesterday?
>
> the failed machines have # UPDATE version 1731806 so i am not sure if
> and when i had 1732039, i only remebered that thread after
> server-alters of the failing update-service
>
> i fired "sa-update.service" manually to make the same as the automatic
> thing including the random sleep of the fedora-script to not overload
> SA servers (normallery triggered by sa-update.timer) and this time it
> suceeded
>
> now that machine is on
> # UPDATE version 1732263
>
> log obviously only contain on-interrupted runs
>
> 23-Feb-2016 00:48:06: SpamAssassin: Update processed successfully
> 24-Feb-2016 00:32:42: SpamAssassin: Update processed successfully
> 25-Feb-2016 00:38:15: SpamAssassin: Update processed successfully
> 26-Feb-2016 15:33:57: SpamAssassin: Update processed successfully
If you had failures after 1731806 and then updated to 1732263, you may
have skipped the update with the 0-byte file.
I was curious, because if you got the 1732039 update with a good
72_active.cf file, then it might point to a problem with the download
mirrors rather than the rule generation process.
--
Bowie
Re: Rules UPDATE version 1732039 IS BROKEN
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 26.02.2016 um 15:44 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
> On 2/26/2016 9:11 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 26.02.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
>>> Restored a backup yesterday to get the 72_active.cf file back. Rule
>>> updates from the saupdate run at about midnight updated everything and I
>>> don't see any 0-length files this time
>>
>> interesting - i had no zero-bytes-file yesterday
>>
>> in fact rule update tonight failed on every machine, see my other
>> response to this topic and the question what changed that it failed
>> for the first time on Fedora 22 as well as Fedora 23 machines
>>
>> Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw sa-update.cron: 26-Feb-2016 01:41:53:
>> SpamAssassin: Update available, but download or extract failed
>> Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw systemd: sa-update.service: main process
>> exited, code=exited, status=4/NOPERMISSION
>>
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 250K 2016-02-25 00:38
>> /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>>
>
> I'm running SA 3.4.1 on CentOS 6.
>
> I had a 0-byte 72_active.cf file yesterday from update 1732039. Last
> night, it updated to 1732263 with no problems whatsoever. I have no
> idea why it would fail for you unless you did something that would
> affect the permissions of those directories. I am assuming
> "4/NOPERMISSION" refers to file permissions, but I don't know for sure.
>
> Did you get update 1732039 yesterday?
the failed machines have # UPDATE version 1731806 so i am not sure if
and when i had 1732039, i only remebered that thread after server-alters
of the failing update-service
i fired "sa-update.service" manually to make the same as the automatic
thing including the random sleep of the fedora-script to not overload SA
servers (normallery triggered by sa-update.timer) and this time it suceeded
now that machine is on
# UPDATE version 1732263
log obviously only contain on-interrupted runs
23-Feb-2016 00:48:06: SpamAssassin: Update processed successfully
24-Feb-2016 00:32:42: SpamAssassin: Update processed successfully
25-Feb-2016 00:38:15: SpamAssassin: Update processed successfully
26-Feb-2016 15:33:57: SpamAssassin: Update processed successfully
Re: Rules UPDATE version 1732039 IS BROKEN
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
On 2/26/2016 9:11 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 26.02.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
>>> Hmmm, well, I guess a big enough problem won't fail lint:
>>>
>>> bigsky:spamassassin root# ls -l
>>> 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 0 Feb 25 04:29
>>> 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>>>
>>> That's what backups are for. :)
>>> (Subject revised)
>>
>> Restored a backup yesterday to get the 72_active.cf file back. Rule
>> updates from the saupdate run at about midnight updated everything and I
>> don't see any 0-length files this time
>
> interesting - i had no zero-bytes-file yesterday
>
> in fact rule update tonight failed on every machine, see my other
> response to this topic and the question what changed that it failed
> for the first time on Fedora 22 as well as Fedora 23 machines
>
> Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw sa-update.cron: 26-Feb-2016 01:41:53:
> SpamAssassin: Update available, but download or extract failed
> Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw systemd: sa-update.service: main process
> exited, code=exited, status=4/NOPERMISSION
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 250K 2016-02-25 00:38
> /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>
I'm running SA 3.4.1 on CentOS 6.
I had a 0-byte 72_active.cf file yesterday from update 1732039. Last
night, it updated to 1732263 with no problems whatsoever. I have no
idea why it would fail for you unless you did something that would
affect the permissions of those directories. I am assuming
"4/NOPERMISSION" refers to file permissions, but I don't know for sure.
Did you get update 1732039 yesterday?
--
Bowie
Re: Rules UPDATE version 1732039 IS BROKEN
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 26.02.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Bowie Bailey:
>> Hmmm, well, I guess a big enough problem won't fail lint:
>>
>> bigsky:spamassassin root# ls -l
>> 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 0 Feb 25 04:29
>> 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>>
>> That's what backups are for. :)
>> (Subject revised)
>
> Restored a backup yesterday to get the 72_active.cf file back. Rule
> updates from the saupdate run at about midnight updated everything and I
> don't see any 0-length files this time
interesting - i had no zero-bytes-file yesterday
in fact rule update tonight failed on every machine, see my other
response to this topic and the question what changed that it failed for
the first time on Fedora 22 as well as Fedora 23 machines
Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw sa-update.cron: 26-Feb-2016 01:41:53:
SpamAssassin: Update available, but download or extract failed
Feb 26 01:41:53 mail-gw systemd: sa-update.service: main process exited,
code=exited, status=4/NOPERMISSION
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 250K 2016-02-25 00:38
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
Re: Rules UPDATE version 1732039 IS BROKEN
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
On 2/25/2016 12:33 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2016, at 11:42, John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't had much time for analysis of this yet and likely will not
>>> today , but last night's update is missing a number of 'describe'
>>> lines (e.g. TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY, TVD_FROM_1) previously in
>>> 72_active.cf.
>>>
>>> Someone with more than 10 minutes to spare today and clues about the
>>> rules update process should look into this.
>>
>> That may be due to an error in a rule change commit I made. If so,
>> the next update (tonight) will fix it.
>>
>> If that's indeed the cause, I'm surprised that masscheck proceeded in
>> the face of a failed lint and that an error in one standalone rule
>> affected a bunch of totally unrelated rules...
>
> Hmmm, well, I guess a big enough problem won't fail lint:
>
> bigsky:spamassassin root# ls -l
> 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 0 Feb 25 04:29
> 3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
>
> That's what backups are for. :)
> (Subject revised)
Restored a backup yesterday to get the 72_active.cf file back. Rule
updates from the saupdate run at about midnight updated everything and I
don't see any 0-length files this time.
--
Bowie
Rules UPDATE version 1732039 IS BROKEN
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 25 Feb 2016, at 11:42, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
>
>> I haven't had much time for analysis of this yet and likely will not
>> today , but last night's update is missing a number of 'describe'
>> lines (e.g. TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY, TVD_FROM_1) previously in
>> 72_active.cf.
>>
>> Someone with more than 10 minutes to spare today and clues about the
>> rules update process should look into this.
>
> That may be due to an error in a rule change commit I made. If so, the
> next update (tonight) will fix it.
>
> If that's indeed the cause, I'm surprised that masscheck proceeded in
> the face of a failed lint and that an error in one standalone rule
> affected a bunch of totally unrelated rules...
Hmmm, well, I guess a big enough problem won't fail lint:
bigsky:spamassassin root# ls -l
3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 0 Feb 25 04:29
3.004001/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
That's what backups are for. :)
(Subject revised)
Re: CALL FOR HELP: Rules UPDATE version 1732039 *may* be broken
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Bill Cole wrote:
> I haven't had much time for analysis of this yet and likely will not today ,
> but last night's update is missing a number of 'describe' lines (e.g.
> TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY, TVD_FROM_1) previously in 72_active.cf.
>
> Someone with more than 10 minutes to spare today and clues about the rules
> update process should look into this.
That may be due to an error in a rule change commit I made. If so, the
next update (tonight) will fix it.
If that's indeed the cause, I'm surprised that masscheck proceeded in the
face of a failed lint and that an error in one standalone rule affected a
bunch of totally unrelated rules...
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
66 days since the first successful real return to launch site (SpaceX)