Bad sandbox rules

[Kent Oyer <ke...@mxguardian.net>]

I would like to clean up some of my "bad" sandbox rules. However, I see that some of them have been promoted and are showing up in 72_active.cf prefixed with "T_". My questions are:
1. If the rules were bad then why were they promoted?
2. If I remove these rules from the sandbox, will that cause problems?
Thanks
Kent

Re[2]: Bad sandbox rules

[Kent Oyer <ke...@mxguardian.net>]

On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 10:43 AM, Benny Pedersen via dev <de...@spamassassin.apache.org> wrote:
Received: from webmail.mxguardian.net (localhost.localdomain 
[127.0.0.1])
   by plesk.mxguardian.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1CBDE18FAB403B
   for <dev@spamassassin.apache.org (mailto:dev@spamassassin.apache.org)>; Wed, 21 May 2025 14:38:59 +0000 
(UTC)

ups ESMTPA not ESMTPSA ?
The connection was made over the loopback interface so using TLS would just waste resources. 
Thanks anyway

Re: Bad sandbox rules

[Benny Pedersen via dev <de...@spamassassin.apache.org>]

Kent Oyer skrev den 2025-05-21 16:38:
> I would like to clean up some of my "bad" sandbox rules. However, I
> see that some of them have been promoted and are showing up in
> 72_active.cf prefixed with "T_". My questions are:
> 
> 1. If the rules were bad then why were they promoted?
> 
> 2. If I remove these rules from the sandbox, will that cause problems?

Received: from webmail.mxguardian.net (localhost.localdomain 
[127.0.0.1])
	by plesk.mxguardian.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1CBDE18FAB403B
	for <de...@spamassassin.apache.org>; Wed, 21 May 2025 14:38:59 +0000 
(UTC)

ups ESMTPA not ESMTPSA ?

okay that asside

T_* rules is only testing rules that imho should be score limited so not 
give spam hits for live testing, but it can be used in corpus to see the 
tests to be moved to new rules without the T_* prefix

if it can be solvede to not be in public rules it would not be so 
harmfull and still usefull for rule maintainers

all the best, and thanks