https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
Mark Zealey mark.zea...@webfusion.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #2 from Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com 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/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
AXB axb.li...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||axb.li...@gmail.com
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #4 from Mark Zealey mark.zea...@webfusion.com 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #5 from Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #6 from AXB axb.li...@gmail.com 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #7 from Mark Zealey mark.zea...@webfusion.com 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
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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #9 from Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com 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:
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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
--- Comment #14 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 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]:
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
(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 or
(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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
Darxus dar...@chaosreigns.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #11 from AXB axb.li...@gmail.com 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #12 from Michael Scheidell scheid...@secnap.net 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #13 from AXB axb.li...@gmail.com 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #14 from AXB axb.li...@gmail.com 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3642
Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6544
Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #1 from Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #2 from Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com 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
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=1084721view=rev
Log:
Bug 6558: let sa-update issue a warning when stumbling across a rule which
could hit this bug
Will this warn
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
--- Comment #15 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 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
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1084721view=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 new
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #5 from Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com 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
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 this bug
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
--- Comment #16 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6559
--- Comment #1 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2011-03-23 20:20:30
EDT ---
The following thread sheds some light on the problem:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6559
--- Comment #2 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 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
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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6548
--- Comment #7 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 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
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
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 1084826.
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,
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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #6 from Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca 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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6560
--- Comment #7 from Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com 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
39 matches
Mail list logo
