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...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2014/09/17 17:17:34 UTC
[Bug 7084] New: T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO
seem identical.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
Bug ID: 7084
Summary: T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO
seem identical.
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Rules
Assignee: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Reporter: mrl@psfc.mit.edu
The T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO rule was recently added,and it looks identical to
FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO. A mistake, or is there a reason for both?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #11 from AXB <ax...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to John Hardin from comment #10)
> ...unfortunately "tflags nopublish" appears to keep it from appearing in the
> masscheck results at all.
>
tflags nopublish doesn't prevent a rule from being masschecked
must be something else
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #10 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
...unfortunately "tflags nopublish" appears to keep it from appearing in the
masscheck results at all.
However, the :addr doesn't seem to make a difference in the subrule:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?rule=%2Ffreemail_hdr_replyto
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
Mark London <mr...@psfc.mit.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mrl@psfc.mit.edu
--- Comment #3 from Mark London <mr...@psfc.mit.edu> ---
While there is a slight difference in the rules, they always trigger at the
same time:
[root@mail log]# grep T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYT maillog* | grep -v
FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO
[root@mail log]# grep FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO maillog* | grep -v
T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYT
[root@mail log]# grep T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYT maillog* | wc -l
937
I've got the latest updates, and T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYT still appears (redhat
linux):
[root@mail updates_spamassassin_org]# ls -l 72*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 213861 Sep 17 04:10 72_active.cf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 10282 Sep 17 04:10 72_scores.cf
[root@mail updates_spamassassin_org]# grep T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYT 72_active.cf
72_active.cf:##{ T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO ifplugin
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::FreeMail
72_active.cf:meta T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO __freemail_hdr_replyto &&
!FREEMAIL_FROM && !__freemail_safe
72_active.cf:describe T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO Freemail in Reply-To, but not
From
72_active.cf:#score T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO 0.1
72_active.cf:##} T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO ifplugin
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::FreeMail
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #2 from AXB <ax...@gmail.com> ---
FTR: unless we have a bug in autopromoting T_* rules shouldn't be published
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #6 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
(In reply to AXB from comment #5)
> disabled SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO - ruleqa reports same hit rate as
> FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO
Given what I noted that's not too surprising.
The subrule in SMF should be renamed. It's entirely possible that adding :addr
_does_ make a difference, but the code as it is now won't tell us that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #1 from AXB <ax...@gmail.com> ---
seem but they're not
# Test potential error in base rules
header __freemail_hdr_replyto eval:check_freemail_header('Reply-To:addr')
meta SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO __freemail_hdr_replyto && !FREEMAIL_FROM &&
!__freemail_safe
describe SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO Freemail in Reply-To, but not From
score SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO 0.1
# Idea from John Hardin
header __freemail_hdr_replyto eval:check_freemail_header('Reply-To')
meta FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO __freemail_hdr_replyto && !FREEMAIL_FROM &&
!__freemail_safe
describe FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO Freemail in Reply-To, but not From
score FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO 0.1
Reply-To versus Reply-To:addr
both scored 0.1 so not major issue
I don't see SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO being published in the latest update
wonder how you got the T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO rule
Have you run sa-update recently?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #8 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
uncommented the ifplugin as well, and changed the subrule name in the meta so
that it's consistent.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #5 from AXB <ax...@gmail.com> ---
disabled SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO - ruleqa reports same hit rate as
FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO
Commit Modified /trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/smf/20_smf.cf
Committed revision 1625641.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
Committed 1625832
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #7 from AXB <ax...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to John Hardin from comment #6)
> (In reply to AXB from comment #5)
> > disabled SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO - ruleqa reports same hit rate as
> > FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO
>
> Given what I noted that's not too surprising.
>
> The subrule in SMF should be renamed. It's entirely possible that adding
> :addr _does_ make a difference, but the code as it is now won't tell us that.
took a while to grasp that :)
rencommited using
__smf_freemail_hdr_replyto
and
tflags SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO nopublish
so we can watch it
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: [Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO
seem identical.
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 09/17/2014 06:12 PM, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.spamassassin.org wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
>
> John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |jhardin@impsec.org
>
> --- Comment #4 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
> (In reply to AXB from comment #1)
> SMF sandbox:
>> header __freemail_hdr_replyto eval:check_freemail_header('Reply-To:addr')
>
> 20_freemail.cf
>> header __freemail_hdr_replyto eval:check_freemail_header('Reply-To')
>
> Using the same name for those two different evals is definitely an issue... the
> one in SMF should be using a different subrule name if it's indeed intended to
> be compared to the results of the base rule.
>
question is why are T_* rules showing up in 72_active.cf
[Bug 7084] T_SMF_FM_FORGED_REPLYTO and FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO seem
identical.
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jhardin@impsec.org
--- Comment #4 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
(In reply to AXB from comment #1)
SMF sandbox:
> header __freemail_hdr_replyto eval:check_freemail_header('Reply-To:addr')
20_freemail.cf
> header __freemail_hdr_replyto eval:check_freemail_header('Reply-To')
Using the same name for those two different evals is definitely an issue... the
one in SMF should be using a different subrule name if it's indeed intended to
be compared to the results of the base rule.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.