On 3/23/2011 6:51 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 23/03/2011 7:21 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I am afraid we already need another emergency rule update for 3.3.
Please take a look at Bug #6220 and #6560. In the short-term we need to
push another emergency rule update to disable all six of tho
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #7 from Warren Togami 2011-03-24 01:28:29 EDT
---
May I propose that we insert a temporary "short-circuit" into the auto-update
mechanism to allow for manual inspection prior to it being pushed live?
Let all but the DNS upd
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #6 from Daryl C. W. O'Shea 2011-03-24
01:07:38 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Didn't commit to trunk either, since I don't know which branch actually is
> used
> for autopromotion. Doe this need to be committed to both,
On 23/03/2011 7:21 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I am afraid we already need another emergency rule update for 3.3.
Please take a look at Bug #6220 and #6560. In the short-term we need to
push another emergency rule update to disable all six of those network
rules. Then we need to figure out how
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 01:48 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
It'd be nice if I could see these warnings in the make+make test+masscheck
I (try to) do before commits...
I agree.
Currently what is necessary is to ditch a sa-compile.cache
directory, e.
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6548
> > Though did you really have to remove the trailing newline, Mark? I like
> > trailing newlines. ;)
>
> trunk:
> [doc] re-append an empty line to spamd/PROTOCOL, Guenther liked it :)
> Sending spamd/PROTOCOL
> Committed revision 108
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 01:48 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
> > It'd be nice if I could see these warnings in the make+make test+masscheck
> > I (try to) do before commits...
>
> I agree.
>
> Currently what is necessary is to ditch a sa-compile.cache
> directory, e.g.
>
> rm -rf /root/.spamassassi
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6548
--- Comment #7 from Mark Martinec 2011-03-23 21:25:13
EDT ---
> Though did you really have to remove the trailing newline, Mark? I like
> trailing newlines. ;)
trunk:
[doc] re-append an empty line to spamd/PROTOCOL, Guenther liked it
> > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
> > Attached is a patch to BodyRuleBaseExtractor.pm which will
> > make sa-compile report a warning when hitting a rule with
> > tflag=multiple and a lossy match. Appropriate for Jenkins runs.
John Hardin wrote:
> Would this be run au
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6559
--- Comment #2 from Mark Martinec 2011-03-23 20:31:25
EDT ---
> until the DBD::Pg gets fixed.
Actually the fix should already be in DBD::Pg 2.17.2,
released on November 21, 2010, four months ago.
Please upgrade your DBD::Pg and see if
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
Attached is a patch to BodyRuleBaseExtractor.pm which will
make sa-compile report a warning when hitting a rule with
tflag=multiple and a lossy match. Appropriate for Jenkin
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6559
--- Comment #1 from Mark Martinec 2011-03-23 20:20:30
EDT ---
The following thread sheds some light on the problem:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Gripe-bytea-output-default-gt-data-corruption-td3209840.html
A current workaro
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
--- Comment #16 from Mark Martinec 2011-03-23 18:38:55
EDT ---
trunk:
add a dummy function feature_bug6558_free() to allow
conditionalizing problematic rules;
a "feature" function must return a true to be considered'
Sending lib/M
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 14:13 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Mark, how positive are you, that the Perl bug you filed is the real,
> > underlying issue? Seeing all these reports about effected systems, and
> > seemingly identical systems not effected...
>
> I'm certain t
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #5 from Warren Togami 2011-03-23 17:12:00 EDT
---
I looked into if this change will cause anything else unexpected.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jm/20_bug_5984.cf
RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1084721&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Bug 6558: let sa-update issue a warning when stumbling across a rule
> > which could hit this bug
>
> Will this warn during --lint?
No, I'm afraid it won't. Also if rule bases are cached from a previous
sa-compile run, the ne
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #4 from Karsten Bräckelmann 2011-03-23
16:38:05 EDT ---
Didn't commit to trunk either, since I don't know which branch actually is used
for autopromotion. Doe this need to be committed to both, 3.3 and trunk?
--
Configure
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
--- Comment #15 from Mark Martinec 2011-03-23 16:33:38
EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=4859)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4859)
let sa-update issue a warning when stumbling across a rule which could h
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #3 from Karsten Bräckelmann 2011-03-23
16:32:24 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=4858)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4858)
proposed fix
This rather trivial patch moves tflags (userconf|lear
On 3/23/2011 10:27 AM, mmarti...@apache.org wrote:
Author: mmartinec
Date: Wed Mar 23 20:27:59 2011
New Revision: 1084721
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1084721&view=rev
Log:
Bug 6558: let sa-update issue a warning when stumbling across a rule which
could hit this bug
Will this warn d
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #2 from Warren Togami 2011-03-23 16:11:29 EDT
---
NOTE: The only reason #testrules was used in this particular sandbox file was
Bug #6527 where "tflags nopublish" not only excluded it from auto-promotion but
also from nightl
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #1 from Karsten Bräckelmann 2011-03-23
14:45:02 EDT ---
The problem is in build/mkupdates/listpromotable, starts around line 207, see
the following 20 lines. Also related, bug 5545.
The following few lines of comments fully
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6544
Mark Martinec changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@ereomega.net
--- Comment #
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3642
Mark Martinec changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #14 from AXB 2011-03-23 12:41:58 EDT ---
Suggest we move the discussion to dev mail list.
Discussing .255 is not relevant to the bug which is about rules being published
erroneously.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #13 from AXB 2011-03-23 12:34:07 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> >
> >
> > 127.0.0.255 is a separate issue entirely. It is FULLY INTENDED for DNSBL's
> > to
> > cause false positive hits when
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #12 from Michael Scheidell 2011-03-23
12:30:15 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
>
>
> 127.0.0.255 is a separate issue entirely. It is FULLY INTENDED for DNSBL's to
> cause false positive hits when you are improperly queryi
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #11 from AXB 2011-03-23 12:27:34 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Wouldn't it be better for everybody if, instead of intentionally causing false
> positives, the 127.0.0.255 values were detected by SA and used to disable t
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
Darxus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dar...@chaosreigns.com
--- Comment #10
> (outside of simply not
> pushing any body regexes with tflags multiple to < 3.2.2).
err.. 3.3.2, I mean.
I did a little bit more playing of regexes that fail to compile (just to
get more info) and the l{2} trick doesn't work consistently at all. It
seems to compile successfully when the string
(Apologies if this is duplicated)
> Sorry, despite *all* the initial research done by Matt (thanks again!)
> ended up in my Inbox, I somehow lost track of some details while also
> being busy on the users list...
Just as a heads up, it's less case insensitive vs. case sensitive but
more whether o
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Mark, how positive are you, that the Perl bug you filed is the real,
> underlying issue? Seeing all these reports about effected systems, and
> seemingly identical systems not effected...
I'm certain this bug is the underlying issue. I picked debugging
from where Matt
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
--- Comment #14 from Mark Martinec 2011-03-23 09:03:25
EDT ---
> Seems to be a perl bug, affecting 5.8, 5.10, 5.12, but not 5.13.10.
> I have reported the perl bug as [perl #86784]:
> http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=8678
On 3/21/2011 5:29 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 21/03/2011 11:08 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 20:01 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Actually... I can't find any sign of PILL_PRICE in the latest
update. Are you
sure there's s
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #9 from Warren Togami 2011-03-23 07:18:28 EDT
---
Bug #6560 is to investigate how rules in a "#testrules" file were auto-promoted
into active.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
Summary: Network #testrules shouldn't be auto-promoted!
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Se
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #8 from Warren Togami 2011-03-23 06:49:44 EDT
---
It is a VERY SERIOUS error that these network rules were auto-promoted to the
sa-update channel. We need to rectify this quickly, then figure out what went
wrong for the aut
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #7 from Mark Zealey 2011-03-23 06:36:14
EDT ---
I agree it should keep using this, however if this code is returned
spamassassin should not treat it as if the given domain is in the blacklist.
All our messages suddenly start
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #6 from AXB 2011-03-23 06:32:35 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Yes we have of course disabled it now. Even if this is not meant to be put
> live, could you still look at the disabling of a return result of 127.0.0.255?
>
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #5 from Warren Togami 2011-03-23 06:30:43 EDT
---
OK, something is seriously wrong here.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/smf/30_bug_6220_sem.cf
This file begins with #testrules but all of
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #4 from Mark Zealey 2011-03-23 06:27:01
EDT ---
Yes we have of course disabled it now. Even if this is not meant to be put
live, could you still look at the disabling of a return result of 127.0.0.255?
Thanks,
Mark
--
Co
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
AXB changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||axb.li...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from A
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #2 from Warren Togami 2011-03-23 06:22:56 EDT
---
OH NO!
This was never meant to become an active rule. We must issue an update remove
it from the active rules.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssass
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
Mark Zealey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark.zea...@webfusion.com
--- Com
44 matches
Mail list logo
