Already done this yesterday, just haven't committed. I've been working on
the test rule. I was very displeased with the FPs. But I went ahead and
committed just now.
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've had a few weeks now to delve into how the rule process works and it is
convoluted. However, I'm not sure there is a good, easy fix. I'm just
coming up to speed with how best to get rules to release quality standards
because I feel that rules built-in to SA have to really be of the
I don't know what is up but his chronology of SAProxy with my memory is
fairly accurate. It also matches the SA Wiki entry at
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SaProxy reasonably well.
In short, I haven't tested it but it's more than feasible.
Sure, that's what all the spammers say.
;-)
KAM
- Original Message -
From: Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Spamassassin Devel List dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Output from cron command]
Wondering if there is a variable or test available to simply use the
length of the email body in rules?
If not, my thoughts are a test like
BODY_LENGTH_512 would test for the BODY_LENGTH 512 bytes,
HTML_BODY_LENGTH_512 would do the same using html_eval instead. Ideally, it
would exclude
I'm not sure I disagree technically but I personally always hate criticism
of open-source/volunteer projects because my view is that a complaint must
be coupled with an offer to step-up to the plate and fix the problem.
Invite him to join the project and help with documentation if he feels that
One thing I'd want to avoid is having to set up two separate SVN
workspaces to get a usable checkout, or having to download two separate
tarballs to get a usable release. In my opinion, the core code
is nearly useless without rules, so there isn't a need to ship it
without them.
I think this
Still trying to get my feet wet on SA Dev work and
I would appreciate some hints on how could I take something like this
code:
http://www.peregrinehw.com/downloads/MIMEDefang/contrib/check_reverse_stub.pl
And turn it into a native test for SpamAssassin to
perform.
Regards,KAM
I use Meta Rules with sub_tests such
as:
body __RULE1
body __RULE2
meta (__RULE1 + __RULE2) = 1
Sometimes I want to change the weight from the
default of 1.0 for the sub_tests. I had *thought* this would work (but
doesn't):
body __RULE1
score __RULE1 0.5
body __RULE2
score __RULE2 0.5
I noticed when running in debug and testing the meta weighting we were
discussing yesterday that running this test:
metaKAM_TIME((__KAM_TIME1 + ((__KAM_TIME2 + __KAM_TIME3
+ __KAM_TIME4 + __KAM_TIME5) / 2) + (__KAM_TIME6 * 1.5)) = 2)
gives this error:
[1177] info: rules:
hey -- anyone think we should consider getting 3.2.0 out before January? I
think it may be doable.
The one major feature I want to get in is the re2c/sa-compile speedup code
in the side branch -- it provides about a 20% speedup of scanning by
compiling parts of the ruleset into native code,
I would say it's great. I've had it on a test and live server now for
months.
As an FYI, Dallas is 100% cool with adding it to the SA core ruleset.
As for which release, I don't know. The sooner the better.
Regards,
KAM
the ImageInfo plugin is currently in SVN as
Is there a way in the standard rule structure to do either of the following?
A) make a specific rule or rule set test at (or near) the end of the tests
B) test something like if score 5 do something.
Essentially, I want to write more HAM rules that aren't tied to specific SPAM
rules for
While I can't say that this would solve his problem, it would greatly help
with my stock spam fights. I'd like to drop the rules for pump and dump
stock spams that are no longer prevalent in the wild but it gets annoying to
update the meta rule without breaking something. Putting the asterisk
Yes and I received the original posting on the 3rd as well. It looks like a
fair release schedule and I'm very much looking forward to the compiled
rules work being released.
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent:
Adam:
This test (below) looks to me to be designed to catch all spam .gif
through .gif? If so I would say the false positives are going to be
pretty high even without running it through a corpus. Certainly it has a
high enough potential for FPs that a score of 3.2 is not
Justin:
I have a box with quad dual-core 3.0GHz Xeon's, 16GB RAM, 15K RPM SCSI
Drives running CentOS 4.3 on a Gigabit Pipe to the Internet that I've made
you an account on and I've given you full sudo access so you have root on it
(temporarily, I hope).
Call me on my cell 703-798-0171 and
Looks like less of an error perhaps and maybe just an invalid graphic? In
the get_details hash procedure, it looks like unpacking the header and
sometimes return a $packed that isn't initialized.
Does this fail every time or just on some of the corpus?
Regards,
KAM
I've been getting a trickle of spams from sites that reverses as
hn.kd[munge].ny.[munge]adsl or hn.kd[munge].dhcp.
On the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, it seems that others have posted about similar
issues like Re: HELP: Blocking *.adsl in Sendmail access db
It seems fairly limited on my corpus but
So re-roll that there tarball and get it out there! 8*)
All tests were successful on RH7.2 and CentOS 4.3.
However, was the trunk with the fix for awl+bayes via mysql already rolled
into the rc2 tarballs or will that be an rc3 tarball?
Regards,
KAM
David is the author of MIMEDefang and I thought his email below on
short-circuiting deserved to be forwarded.
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] Memory Limit
Thanks. I was trying to figure out why I couldn't duplicate the mysql
awl+bayesian bug.
The other bug is the spamc/d issue?
Regards,
KAM
that'll be a re-roll of the rc2 tarball -- we haven't officially
released any kind of rc2 yet ;)
There's a more serious bug which Sidney is looking at
Is Dobly Noise reduction the proper spelling?
- Original Message -
From: Sidney Markowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [DRAFT] new SpamAssassin 3.2.0 release candidate 2 available
1st, I'm trying to search image alt tags for a rule because I'm seeing Spammers
using Alt tags for when their images are blocked. So I want to confirm that
rawbody is the correct rule type to search for this type of html tag. My real
concern is that will this search through things like MIME
Based on your previous issue, the non-impactful commits are all OK and the
bugs can be held for 3.2.1.
Therefore, I vote +1 on releasing 3.2.0 this week at your discretion with
Wednesday being fine.
The highest priority bug I see is the spamc win32 build issue. Can we add
something to the
The issue in the bug listing there is just that, by default, it'll attempt
to build spamc; it's easily avoided by hitting n when Makefile.PL asks.
in other words it's a simple UI issue, as far as I can see.
Is there a more serious issue?
Not serious, just one that I think should be documented
I assumed (good start eh) that there was a *.2.3 wildcard like 3.1 has, so
a 0.2.3 record would have worked.
Speaking of wildcards, did a bug ever get opened, closed, worked on to allow
for wildcards in rule names for meta rules? I'd love this feature and my
senility keeps me from
Daryl:
I mentioned this a few days ago but I'm concerned about the promotion of
KAM_STOCKTIP14. That's a partial rule from my toying in the sandbox and
learning about the rules-qa process.
Promoting it to a full, non-meta rule is not good though. I'll update the
STOCKTIPs with a better
Just an FYI. I know nothing more about the issue:
- Original Message -
From: Frank Doepper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] SA 3.2.0 and tmp files
Am 04.05.2007 19:18 schrieb Kelson:
Jason Bertoch [Electronet]
I've requested that at least one of them does and will try and follow up on
it.
- Original Message -
From: Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kevin A. McGrail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: SpamAssassin Dev dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Fw
I'm wondering how to handle things with services like dyndns.org. I've seen
spam using their domains and not sure about collateral damage from RBLs or
rules against them. Has this ever been discussed before?
Regards,
KAM
As discussed prior, I *thought* the sandbox was a playground aka wiki
sandboxes where it was just lines in the sand washed away by the next tide.
I was very surprised to find out they auto-promoted. I would support the
explicit nature you refer to below.
Regards,
KAM
We currently have this
On a normal product server using SA MIMEDefang, I'm trying to modifying the
logging on the load_with_dbi in Conf/SQL.pm.
I've tried changed the debug calls to reflect a new facility config-dbi
dbg(config-dbi: Conf::SQL: executing SQL: $sql);
And I've add the facility with a call
I'm trying to please too many masters ;-) Is there a way in a rule cf file to
encapsulate a rule with a IF SA VERSION IS 3.2.0 or Greater, include this
rule, else...?
Regards,
KAM
Check out the SA:Conf man file.
Thanks. This answered my question
if (version 3.00)
header MY_FOO ...
endif
regards,
KAM
I would vote +1 if it's the last version we *test* with 5.6.1 as a
requirement for release. But I would prefer nothing actively be done to
stop working w/5.6.1. Is there some major feature or anything that is
causing the 5.6.1 concern?
- Original Message -
From: Michael Parker
+1 for this from me as well. Rules is Rules (Wonders is someone will
get my quote?)
+1 for me as well to CTR rules.
Regards,
KAM
I haven't seen this but it seems like you use Razor and you have a
relationship with them. I'm not sure I would consider this UCE and that's a
pretty strong accusation to make.
However, there is always the possibility there is a rogue employee doing
dumb things. How do you believe
I'm trying to speed up my rule development.
First, I'm wondering if there is an easy way that already exists to re-run
spamassassin on all the mails in an mbox format file?
Second, anyone know how to modify a muttrc to give a quick key perhaps to save
an email to a temporary file, shell out,
Thanks Theo and Loren,
I am definitively going to get this mass checker working finally. However,
I did answer my own question.
When I'm developing rules, a lot of times I'll put emails into a folder so I
can test them to see if my new rules work. Using mutt, I use this macro:
macro
I don't know how systemic this was but I believe DNS for Apache.org was down
and that the issue was limited. I was bouncing several apache.org mailing
lists because of a lack of MX records.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
70.164.47.208 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 5.1.8 [EMAIL
This is not an appropriate development question as SpamAssassin is NOT a
challenge and response anti-spam system. While you may have an implementation
that uses C+R and SpamAssassin, it is not something inherent to SpamAssassin.
You should discuss this issue on the SpamAssassin Users' List.
The problem is that Spamhaus currently auto-blacklists IPs with high
rate-of-query.. this will likely cause the folks doing weekly/net runs
to get blacklisted unless they buy a datafeed from spamhaus.
However, if we drop SBL/XBL/PBL from SpamAssassin's default rules, which
we probably should do,
For anybody following along who cares... it turned out it was zero-length
messages causing the problem. mass-check now handles this.
Phew. I was worried I had something setup wrong on the new mass-check
machine!
Re: ClamAV
SpamAssassin committers-- anyone disagree that it should go in?
I'm only considering it because I've repeatedly found myself installing
it, and it's a nice simple plugin which works well. ;)
+1 from me.
regards,
KAM
Honestly I'm -0.5 on this. SA isn't a virus scanner, and while it could
The magic key that to my mind makes bringing it into the core set isn't
virus, its phish. Agreed, SA isn't a virus scanner and probably
shouldn't be; it is quite inefficient at that sort of thing.
My thoughts are the
Answering only for talon1, yes. It is a quad processor box with dual-core
3GHz Xeon CPUs. Thought it may come up as 16 cores because of
HyperThreading.
regards,
KAM
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:-j8
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:-j8
Are those both 8 core machines? Non-net checks run the fastest with a
single
of the command at 16 and the command at 8 using
even something simple like time would be in order.
Regards,
KAM
yep, /proc/cpuinfo says 16. Should I reduce that back down to 8?
(I haven't had much experience with HT yet)
--j.
Kevin A. McGrail writes:
Answering only for talon1, yes. It is a quad
?
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: Dallas Engelken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Uribl-discuss] elucify.com
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Dallas,
This was already addressed in bug 3305 with SA
http://issues.apache.org
Using SA 3.2.3, I've got the following rule:
if (version 3.20)
#HTML_SHORT_LENGTH DEPENDENCY RULE REMOVED FROM SA 3.2.X
#KAM NUMBER EMAILS - Thanks to Mark Damrose for the NUMBER3 idea Jan-Pieter
Cornet
header__KAM_NUMBER1 Subject =~ /^\d+$/
body __KAM_NUMBER2
I'm +1 but I was curious about the DCC tests. Should we worry they don't
seem to work?
- Original Message -
From: Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 4:47 PM
Subject: PROPOSED release: 3.2.4
Hi all --
candidate tarballs
+1 here. Tested fine.
- Original Message -
From: Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:50 AM
Subject: [VOTE] proposed release tarballs for 3.2.5
hi folks -- could you vote on these proposed release tarballs:
I've been looking at some rules and discussing a FP with a user that would
benefit greatly from ignoring the most recent received header. Is there
currently a way to do this or would a new ruletype be the best way to
achieve this?
Regards,
KAM
-Relays-Untrusted instead of Received, we would essentially bypass
their internal/trusted network relays for the test.
Correct?
Regards,
KAM
I think you can do this with the X-Spam-Relays-* headers. would that work?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 20:15, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
I've been
Not yet dead yet! Did you get my corpora worked in yet so I can start
having my rules not fail horribly?
I just synched my latest spam corpora to mailcorpus_kmcgrail.
I'll set this up in cron as soon as it's being used.
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: Justin Mason
The scoring on FH_FROM_CASH seems to be a little high. I've seen a false
positive now because cash is a legit last name.
Recommend lowering the score by one point.
Regards,
KAM
I would easily vote to require a MakeMaker version if that is the only
requirement to keep 5.6.X support to move this release forward. Anyone
supporting a 5.6.x install should be capable of installing requirements that
don't necessarily require an entirely new version.
However, I don't
I'm all for abandoning perl 5.6 with 3.3, although I can accept it one way
or another. For those in need of perl 5.6 there will still be a 3.2.*.
Please don't say that. I think we'd like to envision the death of old
versions and the support of the new tree only as soon as feasible! I'd
Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl
5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too.
I agree fully with your statements on this!
It's not about an age-range of obsolete versions being introduced, but
superseded. Don't think Perl 5.8 is 7 years old, but 5.6 went
I'm running long tests and net tests and getting a lot of failures in the
DKIM area. I'm running 0.28.
Is this a known issue? Should I upgrade DKIM and try again which would like
make me suggest a higher version requirement for the makefile.
Regards,KAM
t/dkim2.
I'll vote +1 so he can talk about it. With sa-update now we required, we
should add Archive::Tar as a requirement to the Makefile.PL, yes?
# also see CURRENT_PM below
'PREREQ_PM' = {
'Digest::SHA1' = 0, # 2.0 is oldest tested version
'File::Spec'= 0.8,
And/or edit the Mail::SpamAssassin::Util::DependencyInfo as well.
- Original Message -
From: Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com
To: Justin Mason j...@jmason.org; dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [vote] proposed 3.3.0-alpha1 release
I'll
...ok
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si
To: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: [vote] proposed 3.3.0-alpha1 release
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:13:52 +0200, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com
wrote:
I'm
Mark,
Should we increase the DKIM module requirement in the Makefile as well?
regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: mmarti...@apache.org
To: comm...@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 4:09 PM
Subject: svn commit: r791599 - in /spamassassin/trunk:
Warren,
My suggestion would be parameters be added to sa-update that:
A) download the rules, and not install them, ignoring the check for what
current rules are installed
B) install updates from a tar file that DOES check for the current rules
The goal being that someone like Warren could
http://www.us.sorbs.net/
It seems SORBS is shutting down. According to my buddy Rik van Riel that
runs PSBL, SORBS is already shut down.
In any case, we should probably remove it from spamassassin?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
According to the website:
The result is at this present
I'm unfortunately not sure on a +1. Still failing on SPF and whitelist
tests.
The Razor failures, you can ignore. Those are known issues.
Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
---
Good catch. So how to install the rules for the tests but not overwrite the
main system installation?
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si
To: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [vote] proposed
I'm going to vote +1. However, using long tests and net tests still fails
and the failure seems to be a problem again with the rules. I've committed
a fix for this issue (related to the same missing rules for SPF and
WHITELIST_FROM) to svn under bug 6177.
Regards,
KAM
- Original
Have you tried cutting and pasting the {SHA1}... code in as your password?
I was told this might magically work but that does seem to be a completely
ridiculous security pattern as if you get ahold of the encrypted version,
you can still login as someone else using this method.
Regards,
KAM
If it makes you feel better, I almost opened a ticket about this last week
or so with Infra.
- Original Message -
From: Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com
To: Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com
Cc: SpamAssassin Dev dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 9:43 AM
One use for Spam:
http://www.seksispambuttons.com/
Enjoy,
KAM
Is anyone successfully using 3.2.5 spamd/spamc with SSL? I had a heck of a
time compiling it against the correct libraries on my system and don't have it
working. I'm trying to determine if my setup works before I work to change the
compilation/configure scripts.
Regards,
KAM
IMO we could release a beta with this unfixed, jsut to get rules tested.
WDYT?
+1
The suggestion in Bug 4508 (the patch in Comment 3) seems quite useful
and not too intrusive on the current/default usage. Any thoughts on that?
Do we need a CLA from its author?
It does look pretty good, but
At a minimum if we have passed the bugzilla threshold, my next criteria is I
generally don't like seeing a release go out that has known make test
failures.
Currently, I'm failing on this:
t/dkim2...ok 32/123 Not found:
DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN = DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN at
On 03/12/2009 4:51 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
I think it's time we switched 3.3.0 release work to a release branch,
and make it R-T-C -- Review-Then-Commit,
+1
+1
It was a good catch that RNBL replaced SSBL but I don't see this as a 3.3.0
P1 issue. Same thing with HABEAS/BSP. Can't these be handled in normal
course with GA and then sa-update? I worry we are hurrying these too much.
This is a reminder of the goal to cut another pre-release December
Why is pyzor running as root?
- Original Message -
From: Justin Mason
To: Warren Togami
Cc: Mark Martinec ; SpamAssassin Dev
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: pyzor error during spamd startup
it should be harmless, btw, since this is just the
It would be too much for our nightly masscheck volunteers to run the
nightly masscheck twice, so doing both is not an option.
This premise might be flawed. Perhaps NOT having the SVN checked is the
smarter avenue for general rules promotion?
Regards,
KAM
Cross-posting from the MD list. People are seeing the dying of spamd/spamc.
I'm wondering if this issue isn't bad enough that we should mark the rc1 as
do not download?
Also, not sure if this is related to bug 6176...
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: David F. Skoll
Justin,
-1 on rc3.
I tried simply a make test on the rc3 and failed on timeout.t and
sa_compile.t with long tests and net tests.
sa_compile is:
t/sa_compile..ok 1/5Can't exec re2c: No such file or
directory at
Mark,
The machine I'm testing on is ridiculously unheavily loaded and I was able
to repeat the error 2x plus we've had other sporadic reports. This is a
blocker for me.
I've opened a bug. We've got something sneaky going on and I have a
feeling it's still in the timeout and timehires
Fyi it's a holiday weekend in the US. Using lazy concensus now might be better
done starting sunday or monday.
--- Original Message ---
From:Justin Mason j...@jmason.org
Sent:Fri 1/15/10 3:45 pm
To:Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com
Cc:Justin Mason j...@jmason.org,SpamAssassin Dev
Can we make use bytes a .pre configurable option?
--- Original Message ---
From:Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com
Sent:Fri 1/15/10 4:17 pm
To:Michael Parker park...@pobox.com
Cc:Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si, dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Subj:Re: PROPOSED 3.3.0-rc3
On 01/15/2010 04:03
##{ FH_BAD_OEV1441
@@ -3219,2 +3214,6 @@
header __RATWARE_BOUND_B ALL =~
/boundary==_NextPart_000__([0-9a-f]{8})\..{10,400}^Message-Id:
\1\$[0-9a-f]{8}\$/msi #
+header __RCVD_IN_ANBREP eval:check_rbl('anubisrep-lastexternal',
'c.anubisnetworks.com.')
+tflags
But the __* rules have a score of 0 and are not used unless
invoked from some meta rule, which is not the case here
(am I right?). There is no big deal, as far as I can tell.
I was speaking solely on JM's comment that this could affect anubis'
network. I'd rather not release a DDoS if the
So, does recutting the rules tarball stall the publishing
by another three days? As the announcement says, rules are
no longer part of the distribution.
Great Though! Do we have a procedure on the release of new rules?
Regards,
KAM
How did these nopublish rules get into the sa-update channel? This seems
to be a bug. These rules will cause network lookups to that provider who
is unprepared for the 3.3.0 release onslaught. He's currently working on
moving the zone to a separate address with public mirrors and round robin
+1 to this cut. Running it in production, it survived a DDoS mail flood
earlier today and it passes all tests.
I'm happy to report that two test servers passed make test without issue.
And one was using long_tests and net_tests set to y. A third is in
progress now
I also installed this
FWIW I've had these for months seemingly without any ill effect.
3.3.0 changed:
unless
($Mail::SpamAssassin::Logger::LOG_SA{INHIBIT_LOGGING_IN_SIGCHLD_HANDLER}) {
from
unless
($$Mail::SpamAssassin::Logger::LOG_SA{INHIBIT_LOGGING_IN_SIGCHLD_HANDLER}) {
That doesn't seem to be the cause.
I am using the defauls, which turn out to be min-spares=1 and
max-spares=2.
I think that I will change that. In any case, at least here, the only
change
seems to be that the message is more verbose and scarier.
I'm also OK with the release BUT I would like to know WHY the messages are
more
Ah, that widely spread mis-information The Bat! is a spam tool. Yes,
indeed, I've come across that too often, and The Bat! users probably are
used to such issues. Doesn't make it any better, does it? ;)
In my experience, the bat is highly related to spam. However, I was
surprised to find out
In my experience, the bat is highly related to spam. However, I was
Now you got me confused. You mean a forged X-Mailer header, as opposed
to the real MUA itself being involved in spam. No?
Sorry, the subject lead me to believe onet.pl was using The Bat for
customers.
Regards,
KAM
Excellent!
On 2/23/2010 12:29 AM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
FYI... automated score generation and rule update releases for the 3.3
stable branch is now functional (actually, it has been for a week but
there haven't been enough mass-check submissions until now).
The update creation process
On 3/1/2010 8:02 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
On Monday March 1 2010 11:32:32 Justin Mason wrote:
any bugs that we want to get into an impeding 3.3.1 release?
the DBL bug is just about ready to go, bar reviews.
must:
6335 Spamhaus DBL
6313 (a taint fix)
6241 mkrules does not understand
I think 6304 is minor and could go to review as-is. I'd like to enhance
it more but that could be a future issue. However, the hi-jacked
portion with the change to the Makefile on that bug might fix the 6337
svn snapshot.
On 3/1/2010 11:02 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
ok, so my round up of those
Done. The fact that it's the SAME files missing in the Makefile for
6304 that were missing from the SVN Snapshot for 6337 is my thought.
Not sure how the auto-snapshot process works, though to dig further.
On 3/1/2010 11:50 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
6304: if you want to put it in review, go
On 3/2/2010 2:36 PM, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6335
--- Comment #23 from Mark Martinecmark.marti...@ijs.si 2010-03-02 19:36:06
UTC ---
Sure enough, we are geting 127.0.1.255 IP queries prohibited! most of the
time:
dbg:
I've passed this on the DBL team (dbl-t...@spamhaus.org) but I'm not sure I
understand it, delphij.net is not on the DBL...
http://www.spamhaus.org/query/dbl?domain=delphij.net
What is the 129.206.32.114? Is that a query sent to the DBL? (If so it will
return 127.0.1.255 of course).
I'll
On 3/2/2010 10:07 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Needs 2 votes:
6335 Spamhaus DBL
6313 (a taint fix) a -Q -H -x issue
Need 1 more vote:
6310 (a taint fix)
6267 (mainly documenting the already existing functionality)
6304
6313 - ready to go
6310 - ready to go
6267 - ready to go
6304 - ready to
1 - 100 of 1008 matches
Mail list logo
