Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote: The downside is that this is not confirmed ham and confirmed spam. (nod) Exactly. And that is what is needed to do a masscheck... I wonder how much companies would pay for a part time SpamAssassin honcho who can be trusted (bonded?) and can write SARE-ish rules tailored to the company's email. Is there a job opportunity for somebody here? (And, yes, I do suspect the burnout time would be rather short.) (smile) I've got my own custom rule file format (plus a script to convert to standard SA rules format). This reduces the effort to add a new rule pretty much down to a cut-n-paste operation. Must admit there are some days when I do feel a bit burned out, but generally I am gratified to see my new rules trigger on the remainder of a spam flood :) As for trust, I never need to see the ham, just the spam, which has no privacy issues (smile). - C
Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote: Why wait, when you do relatively simple things to help make it happen? http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck We can more frequently update rules if more people participate in the nightly masschecks. The current documentation is a bit of a confusing mess unfortunately. More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful corpus of ham. Sigh But otherwise such a good idea - C
Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
On 19/12/2009 5:51 PM, Charles Gregory wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote: Why wait, when you do relatively simple things to help make it happen? http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck We can more frequently update rules if more people participate in the nightly masschecks. The current documentation is a bit of a confusing mess unfortunately. More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful corpus of ham. Sigh But otherwise such a good idea Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You don't need to provide us with your mail. You can scan your own mail locally on your own machine(s). Daryl
Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote: It's already been stayed no changes to 3.2.5 will be made until 3.3 is done, hasn't it? Well, at this point, I respectfully bow, and take a step back, so as not to sound too demanding of our great volunteers (smile), but I believe in another of my posts I put forward the idea that design, testnig and implementation of rules should be a bit more 'frequent', drawing upon the model of ClamAV, with signatures being frequently released, even while the next major 'engine' update is in the works. I recognize, from the existence of such sites as 'rules du jour' that it has long been a practice for SA to release 'core' rule updates very infrequently. But with respect, I question whether that is still a good practice, particularly when an 'issue' raises concern over a particular set of scores, and it would *appear* that these updates require relatively little effort. So, to put it bluntly, I don't see how a couple of rules changes are worthy of being 'held back' by the entire push to SA 3.3. I would think that a few quick adjustments, and presumably a 'masscheck' would suffice, and new/revised rules could be released at least on a monthly basis without any serious concern for compromising the overall score balance that is the critical goal of SA updates? Or am I grossly mis-estimating the work-load? :) - C
Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote: I recognize, from the existence of such sites as 'rules du jour' that it has long been a practice for SA to release 'core' rule updates very infrequently. But with respect, I question whether that is still a good practice, particularly when an 'issue' raises concern over a particular set of scores, and it would *appear* that these updates require relatively little effort. We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated - i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated masschecks, it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update. -- 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 --- Bother, said Pooh as he struggled with /etc/sendmail.cf, it never does quite what I want. I wish Christopher Robin was here. -- Peter da Silva in a.s.r --- 7 days until Christmas
Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote: Still no changes through the sa-update channel. Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied? Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It exists between your monitor and your keyboard. There is a one inch gap between those two. Perhaps you meant CHAIR and keyboard? ;) - C
Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote: We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated - i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated masschecks, it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update. Music to my ears. I will wait (semi-)patiently. Thanks. - C
Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 13:49
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It exists between your monitor and your
keyboard.
There is a one inch gap between those two.
Perhaps you meant CHAIR and keyboard? ;)
I should have guessed you've managed to short circuit the path
through your brain.
{O,o} -- Grinning, ducking, and running REAL fast that way
(Thanks for the straight line. {^_-})
Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote: We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated - i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated masschecks, it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update. Music to my ears. I will wait (semi-)patiently. Thanks. - C Why wait, when you do relatively simple things to help make it happen? http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck We can more frequently update rules if more people participate in the nightly masschecks. The current documentation is a bit of a confusing mess unfortunately. Warren
Re: [sa] Re: Whitelists in SA
On 18/12/2009 5:13 PM, Warren Togami wrote: On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote: We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated - i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated masschecks, it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update. Music to my ears. I will wait (semi-)patiently. Thanks. - C Why wait, when you do relatively simple things to help make it happen? http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck We can more frequently update rules if more people participate in the nightly masschecks. The current documentation is a bit of a confusing mess unfortunately. Exactly! We have code to do this now. But I'm positive that we don't have a large and diverse enough ham corpus (on a daily basis, not the big turn out for the legacy re-score mass-checks) to trust it. Contributors are always welcome! Daryl
