On 6/13/2017 2:45 PM, John Hardin wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Noel wrote: > >> On 6/13/2017 12:10 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:59:27 -0700 (PDT) >>> John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dependencies. >>> Yes, that would mess things up. Probably shouldn't be able to >>> expire >>> rules that others depend on. The parser could check for that >>> and make >>> them non-expiring (with a warning.) >> >> Maybe expired rules could automatically score as 0.01 rather than >> invalid. Then log a warning to remind the admin. > > How do you adjust the scores of the meta rule(s) depending on it? >
A non-expiring meta depending on an expiring rule? Aim the gun away from your foot. But this shows that "expiring rules" isn't a simple thing. A meta that expires would drop. A valid meta that depends on expired rules would have to be a fatal error; there's no reasonable default action. I guess that goes back to dropping expired rules, with a warning in the docs about what happens with dependencies.
