Crossposting to ruleqa (just subbed!), feel free to continue there. :-)
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 05:55:05PM +0300, Henrik Krohns wrote: > > If you look at the ancient mass-check code before Reuse.pm was split from > it, it shows the original intention: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/masses/mass-check?revision=721962&view=markup > > # --reuse without --net means we need to just zero ALL net rules; skip net > # lookups entirely except for the reused ones. > (then it proceeds to zero scores for all "tflags net" rules) > > Ok I'm not even sure why it's talking about --reuse withOUT --net, since the > point here is to do separate scoresets with and without network checks? One > would simply run local checks only, or --reuse --net. > > If everyone used reuse, would there even be need for "weekly" masschecks as > every day simply included the network checks!? If you ask me, without > --reuse one would be only allowed to submit "nightly" masschecks (no --net). > > Current Reuse.pm simply reads "reuse XXX" config clauses, and zeroes scores > for those. So it is important to remember to use "reuse XXX" for any net > rules, since it doesn't automatically iterate through them anymore! Which > in my mind is silly, why not simply iterate again through "tflags net" and > forget "reuse" stanza completely. > > Cheers, > Henrik > > > > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 05:29:20PM +0300, Henrik K wrote: > > > > Hey guys, > > > > I'm wondering why pretty much no masscheck submitter is using --reuse? > > > > I just committed fixes for lots of missing reuse flags, and now I can > > actually do a ./mass-check --reuse --net run without ANY dns lookups > > launching. So it's super fast too. > > > > What reason would there be to prefer running without reuse? Is this simply > > a case of missing guidance/documentation? Looking at some corpus logs, > > judging by Maildir file timestamps there are even few years old messages run > > through. How can that make any sense, I wouldn't run anything older than > > an hour through DNSBLs. > > > > Of course I understand if someones messages don't have a scantime > > X-Spam-Status header for some reason, but even that could be easily fixable > > by simply running the messages through a dedicated spamd as soon as possible > > to add the headers. > > > > Cheers, > > Henrik
