Thought. Get the update nums from previous turn back on and copy those files to a higher number and update dns. That will revert back to last known good. Regards, KAM
On June 15, 2017 9:24:37 PM EDT, Dave Jones <da...@apache.org> wrote: >Ugg! I asked for some help QA'ing the rules for over a week but got >zero response then. I wonder if what was in SVN wasn't what was really > >running on the old masscheck box. I used what was in SVN. I guess I >will dig through the old VM backup to see if I can find the difference >related to this issue. > >Dave > >-------- Forwarded Message -------- >Subject: Re: Errors since upgrading to 3.4.1: "meta test ... with a >zero >score" >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:00:28 -0700 >From: John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> >To: us...@spamassassin.apache.org > >On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Gerald Turner wrote: > >> spamd[32137]: rules: meta test FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN has >dependency 'HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __FORM_FRAUD_3 has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __MONEY_FRAUD_3 has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __FORM_FRAUD_5 has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __ADVANCE_FEE_4_NEW has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __MONEY_FRAUD_8 has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __ADVANCE_FEE_2_NEW has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __MONEY_FRAUD_5 has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __ADVANCE_FEE_5_NEW has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score >> spamd[31552]: rules: meta test __FORM_FRAUD has dependency >'LOTTO_AGENT' with a zero score > >> - Is there a bug with the project's sa-update channel / auto- >> mass-check setup? > >That's what it sounds like to me - it should not be omitting or zeroing > >the scores of rules that participate in metas. > >Something is odd. This didn't come up on the old masscheck host, but >the >score generation code should not have changed since then... > >It looks like it's not setting both the net and non-net scores for a >few >rules: > > score FROM_IN_TO_AND_SUBJ 1.099 0.000 1.099 0.000 > score HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 > score HK_SCAM_N8 2.506 0.000 2.506 0.000 > score LOTTO_AGENT 2.609 0.000 2.609 0.000 > >The non-network-enabled scores should only be zero for rules marked as >being network-dependent rules, and *all* rules should have a nonzero >network-enabled score (which appears to be the problem here). > >Something else odd is going on in the score generation: some >well-performing rules (notably URI_WP_HACKED) are now getting scored at > >1 point. There are only 56 rules listed in 72_scores.cf (the output >from >the masscheck score generator), the rest would be defaulting to 1 >point. > > >-- > John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ > jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org > key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, > you shouldn't be surprised when you get amateur security. > -- Bruce Schneier >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 3 days until SWMBO's Birthday
