Re: Method of setting score for a custom rule to be the required_score ?

[Bill Cole]

On 27 Jun 2018, at 22:17, J Doe wrote:

I went back to “man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf” and can see mention 
of the shortcircuit plugin . . . is there more documentation (perhaps 
in another man or perldoc), where the shortcircuit keyword is 
mentioned ?


perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit

For any Perl module that has embedded 'pod' documentation, 'perldoc' 
provides the best documentation because it is extracted from the actual 
module rather than relying on a 'man' page that was almost certainly 
extracted from the module originally but may be stale.

Re: Method of setting score for a custom rule to be the required_score ?

[Daniele Duca]

On 28/06/2018 04:17, J Doe wrote:



I went back to “man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf” and can see mention of the 
shortcircuit plugin . . . is there more documentation (perhaps in another man 
or perldoc), where the shortcircuit keyword is mentioned ?

I'd say a good starting point would be 
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_Shortcircuit.html


Daniele

Re: Method of setting score for a custom rule to be the required_score ?

[J Doe]

> On Jun 27, 2018, at 6:20 AM, Daniele Duca  wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> I'd say that a better solution would be to use shortcircuit:
> body __BODY_TEST1 . . .
> body __BODY_TEST2 . . .
> meta CUSTOM_RULE1(__BODY_TEST1 && __BODY_TEST2)
> shortcircuit CUSTOM_RULE1 spam
> 
> At least that saves computing power because other rules would not be 
> processed once a rule is shortcircuited
Hi John and Daniele,

Thank you for your replies.

John - I’d love to submit a patch, but Perl is not one of the languages I speak 
. . . but if that changes in the near future, I’ll submit one.

Daniele - I like your solution in the fact that you mention processing is 
short-circuited - since mail that meets my rules is already satisfied, 
additional work by SA is not needed.

I went back to “man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf” and can see mention of the 
shortcircuit plugin . . . is there more documentation (perhaps in another man 
or perldoc), where the shortcircuit keyword is mentioned ?

Thanks again,

- J

Re: Method of setting score for a custom rule to be the required_score ?

[Daniele Duca]

On 27/06/2018 02:15, J Doe wrote:



Hi John,

Ok, good to know.

Is it possible with the SA grammar to have variables ?  I was thinking 
I’d have something like the following in my: /etc/spamassassin/local.cf


    POISON_PILL = 100


Hi,

I'd say that a better solution would be to use shortcircuit:

body __BODY_TEST1 . . .
body __BODY_TEST2 . . .
meta CUSTOM_RULE1(__BODY_TEST1 && __BODY_TEST2)
shortcircuit CUSTOM_RULE1 spam

At least that saves computing power because other rules would not be processed 
once a rule is shortcircuited

Daniele

Re: Method of setting score for a custom rule to be the required_score ?

[John Hardin]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, J Doe wrote:


On Jun 26, 2018, at 12:13 AM, John Hardin mailto:jhar...@impsec.org>> wrote:


My thinking here is that if this rule ever passes, it should not add a small 
value to the score but push the score up to the value
that required_score is set to.  This way, if the custom rule ever matches, it 
automatically scores the amount required to flag
the message as spam because the score applied is the value of required_score.


That's called a "poison pill rule", and generally you don't worry about hitting 
the required score exactly, you just set it to something large - like 10 or 100.


Is it possible with the SA grammar to have variables ?  I was thinking I’d have 
something like the following in my: /etc/spamassassin/local.cf

   POISON_PILL = 100

…and then all the poison pill rules would reference that:

   score CUSTOM_RULE1 %POISON_PILL

…with the advantage being that if I did want to vary the score assigned to all 
these rules, I could change it in one place ?


Not at this time. As we say, "Patches are welcome!"

You'd have to do that in a preprocessing stage if you wanted to do that: 
have a set of "source" rule files with tokens like that which you edit, 
and run that through a substitution tool to get the local rules files for 
SA to use.



--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
  The world has enough Mouse Clicking System Engineers.
   -- Dave Pooser
---
 8 days until the 242nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Re: Method of setting score for a custom rule to be the required_score ?

[J Doe]

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 12:13 AM, John Hardin  > wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I was wondering if it is possible to assign a score to a custom rule that 
>> will evaluate to the value that required_score is set to.
>> 
>> My thinking here is that if this rule ever passes, it should not add a small 
>> value to the score but push the score up to the value
>> that required_score is set to.  This way, if the custom rule ever matches, 
>> it automatically scores the amount required to flag
>> the message as spam because the score applied is the value of required_score.
>> 
>> I am wondering if it’s possible to do something like this:
>> 
>>   body __BODY_TEST1 . . .
>>   body __BODY_TEST2 . . .
>>   meta CUSTOM_RULE1(__BODY_TEST1 && __BODY_TEST2)
>>   describe CUSTOM_RULE1 My custom rule
>>   score CUSTOM_RULE1 %required_score
>> 
>> …where that last %required_score is the part I am curious about.
>> 
>> If it’s not possible to do this directly, is there a way to achieve the same 
>> effect that is used by SA rule writers ?
> 
> That's called a "poison pill rule", and generally you don't worry about 
> hitting the required score exactly, you just set it to something large - like 
> 10 or 100.

Hi John,

Ok, good to know.

Is it possible with the SA grammar to have variables ?  I was thinking I’d have 
something like the following in my: /etc/spamassassin/local.cf

POISON_PILL = 100

…and then all the poison pill rules would reference that:

score CUSTOM_RULE1 %POISON_PILL

…with the advantage being that if I did want to vary the score assigned to all 
these rules, I could change it in one place ?

Thanks,

- J

Re: Method of setting score for a custom rule to be the required_score ?

[John Hardin]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, J Doe wrote:


Hello,

I was wondering if it is possible to assign a score to a custom rule that will 
evaluate to the value that required_score is set to.

My thinking here is that if this rule ever passes, it should not add a small 
value to the score but push the score up to the value
that required_score is set to.  This way, if the custom rule ever matches, it 
automatically scores the amount required to flag
the message as spam because the score applied is the value of required_score.

I am wondering if it’s possible to do something like this:

   body __BODY_TEST1 . . .
   body __BODY_TEST2 . . .
   meta CUSTOM_RULE1(__BODY_TEST1 && __BODY_TEST2)
   describe CUSTOM_RULE1 My custom rule
   score CUSTOM_RULE1 %required_score

…where that last %required_score is the part I am curious about.

If it’s not possible to do this directly, is there a way to achieve the same 
effect that is used by SA rule writers ?


That's called a "poison pill rule", and generally you don't worry about 
hitting the required score exactly, you just set it to something large - 
like 10 or 100.


--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
 9 days until the 242nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Method of setting score for a custom rule to be the required_score ?

[J Doe]

Hello,

I was wondering if it is possible to assign a score to a custom rule that will 
evaluate to the value that required_score is set to.

My thinking here is that if this rule ever passes, it should not add a small 
value to the score but push the score up to the value
that required_score is set to.  This way, if the custom rule ever matches, it 
automatically scores the amount required to flag 
the message as spam because the score applied is the value of required_score.

I am wondering if it’s possible to do something like this:

body __BODY_TEST1 . . .
body __BODY_TEST2 . . .
meta CUSTOM_RULE1(__BODY_TEST1 && __BODY_TEST2)
describe CUSTOM_RULE1 My custom rule
score CUSTOM_RULE1 %required_score

…where that last %required_score is the part I am curious about.

If it’s not possible to do this directly, is there a way to achieve the same 
effect that is used by SA rule writers ?

Thanks,

- J