You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> on 2011/03/20 22:00:34 UTC
Emergency Rule Updates (was: Bug 6558)
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
>
> Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> changed:
> I guess this warrants a manually triggered rules update release, with the
> affected rules' tflags removed. Just minor surgery to the current tarball.
>
> How again can we do this? Time to dig through my archive...
Found the bare-bones instructions posted to this list by Daryl on Jan
27, thread "Update Mirror Issues" [1].
Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
Anyone up for this? Guess this highlights the point we *do* need a way
to push some sort of emergency rule updates, as mentioned by Daryl in
that post...
[1] http://markmail.org/message/bd3qyedr5y3u2oxw
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Emergency Rule Updates
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> On 21/03/2011 10:37 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>>
>> > On 20/03/2011 5:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
>> > > Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
>> > >
>> > > Anyone up for this? Guess this highlights the point we *do* need a way
>> > > to push some sort of emergency rule updates, as mentioned by Daryl in
>> > > that post...
>> >
>> > Does a manually update need to be pushed?
>>
>> I think if you can push the one that's in the pipe already (1083702)
>> we'll be okay.
>
> I don't have a commit email for that revision, so I guess you're referring to
> something else.
By "in the pipe" I meant that's the commit which the latest completed
masscheck is based upon.
>> > If somebody provides me a patch(es) against whatever current updates
>> > need to be patched, I'll patch them and push the update(s).
>>
>> Remove anything containing PILL_PRICE.
>
> I don't really have time to test stuff... if you can provide a patch that's
> tested against 3.1, I'll try to get it pushed.
Not quickly, sorry. Anybody else?
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be
reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
-- the Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 days until the M1911 is 100 years old - and still going strong!
Re: Emergency Rule Updates
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
On 21/03/2011 10:37 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>
>> On 20/03/2011 5:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
>>> Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
>>>
>>> Anyone up for this? Guess this highlights the point we *do* need a way
>>> to push some sort of emergency rule updates, as mentioned by Daryl in
>>> that post...
>>
>> Does a manually update need to be pushed?
>
> I think if you can push the one that's in the pipe already (1083702)
> we'll be okay.
I don't have a commit email for that revision, so I guess you're
referring to something else.
>> If somebody provides me a patch(es) against whatever current updates
>> need to be patched, I'll patch them and push the update(s).
>
> Remove anything containing PILL_PRICE.
I don't really have time to test stuff... if you can provide a patch
that's tested against 3.1, I'll try to get it pushed.
Daryl
Re: Emergency Rule Updates
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> On 20/03/2011 5:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
>> Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
>>
>> Anyone up for this? Guess this highlights the point we *do* need a way
>> to push some sort of emergency rule updates, as mentioned by Daryl in
>> that post...
>
> Does a manually update need to be pushed?
I think if you can push the one that's in the pipe already (1083702) we'll
be okay.
> If somebody provides me a patch(es) against whatever current updates need to
> be patched, I'll patch them and push the update(s).
Remove anything containing PILL_PRICE.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be
reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
-- the Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 days until the M1911 is 100 years old - and still going strong!
Re: Emergency Rule Updates
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 22:04 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> On 20/03/2011 5:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
> > Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
> >
> > Anyone up for this? Guess this highlights the point we *do* need a way
> > to push some sort of emergency rule updates, as mentioned by Daryl in
> > that post...
>
> Does a manually update need to be pushed?
>
> If somebody provides me a patch(es) against whatever current updates
> need to be patched, I'll patch them and push the update(s).
See the bug above, comment 3. Just get the hell rid of... I mean, meta
out the __PILL_PRICE_x rules, which are currently causing endless loops
when compiled. In some obscure circumstances.
Not removing these rules, but make them always return 0, will not break
dependencies of other rules.
Still digging deeper with a tremendous amount of help by Matt Elson, the
original reporter. And trying him to post his excellent analysis
here. :)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Emergency Rule Updates
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
On 20/03/2011 5:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
> Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
>
> Anyone up for this? Guess this highlights the point we *do* need a way
> to push some sort of emergency rule updates, as mentioned by Daryl in
> that post...
Does a manually update need to be pushed?
If somebody provides me a patch(es) against whatever current updates
need to be patched, I'll patch them and push the update(s).
Daryl
Re: Emergency Rule Updates (was: Bug 6558)
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Karsten Br�ckelmann wrote:
>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
>>
>> Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> changed:
>
>> I guess this warrants a manually triggered rules update release, with the
>> affected rules' tflags removed. Just minor surgery to the current tarball.
>>
>> How again can we do this? Time to dig through my archive...
>
> Found the bare-bones instructions posted to this list by Daryl on Jan
> 27, thread "Update Mirror Issues" [1].
>
> Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
>
> Anyone up for this? Guess this highlights the point we *do* need a way
> to push some sort of emergency rule updates, as mentioned by Daryl in
> that post...
>
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/bd3qyedr5y3u2oxw
Did you see this?
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the liberty of a
free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Read Books,
shall not be infringed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 days until the M1911 is 100 years old - and still going strong!
Re: Emergency Rule Updates
Posted by "Warren Togami Jr." <wt...@gmail.com>.
On 3/21/2011 1:10 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 22:53 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>> If an emergency rule update does go out, please be sure Bug #6533 is
>> part of that push.
>
> See, that's why I told you back those days what RESOLVED FIXED in
> bugzilla means. It means fixed in SVN, and does not require a new update
> or release.
>
> See comment 2 and 3, where Doc already fixed this bug. You then
> re-opened it, waiting for a rules update release.
>
> Warren, you do realize, the current issue with re2c and compiling rules
> in some obscure cases got noticed by the users BECAUSE a new rules
> update finally has been generated automatically, do you? There is no
> need for manual intervention regarding bug 6533, it already is out. (And
> yes, I just grepped the latest rules tarball.)
>
> Closing that bug. Again.
>
>
6533 went out as an automatic push? I thought automatic was broken for
a long time due to the lack of sufficient corpora.
Warren
Re: Emergency Rule Updates
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 22:53 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> If an emergency rule update does go out, please be sure Bug #6533 is
> part of that push.
See, that's why I told you back those days what RESOLVED FIXED in
bugzilla means. It means fixed in SVN, and does not require a new update
or release.
See comment 2 and 3, where Doc already fixed this bug. You then
re-opened it, waiting for a rules update release.
Warren, you do realize, the current issue with re2c and compiling rules
in some obscure cases got noticed by the users BECAUSE a new rules
update finally has been generated automatically, do you? There is no
need for manual intervention regarding bug 6533, it already is out. (And
yes, I just grepped the latest rules tarball.)
Closing that bug. Again.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Emergency Rule Updates
Posted by "Warren Togami Jr." <wt...@gmail.com>.
On 3/20/2011 11:00 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
>>
>> Karsten Bräckelmann<gu...@rudersport.de> changed:
>
>> I guess this warrants a manually triggered rules update release, with the
>> affected rules' tflags removed. Just minor surgery to the current tarball.
>>
>> How again can we do this? Time to dig through my archive...
>
> Found the bare-bones instructions posted to this list by Daryl on Jan
> 27, thread "Update Mirror Issues" [1].
>
> Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
>
> Anyone up for this? Guess this highlights the point we *do* need a way
> to push some sort of emergency rule updates, as mentioned by Daryl in
> that post...
>
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/bd3qyedr5y3u2oxw
>
If an emergency rule update does go out, please be sure Bug #6533 is
part of that push.
Warren