It looks to me like it'd meet all the criteria. Could it be in a file
with tflags nopublish at the top?
--j.
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 17:12, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
Okay, from the masscheck this rule looks really attractive:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 14:04, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I also think if the Content Type is missing completely, wouldn't that be a
good rule? Any indicators that this happens with Ham?
Dunno. I put a test rule in my sandbox last
they do not show up on
https://pause.perl.org/pause/authenquery?ACTION=share_perms in any of
the 'You are primary maintainer:', 'Making and unmaking
co-maintainers', or 'You are co-maintainer' lists when I'm logged in.
:( suggestions?
I think this must have changed since the last release I did,
. here's what PAUSE is telling me:
module userid fullnametypeowner
Mail::SpamAssassin DOS Daryl C. W. O'Shea co-maintJMASON
Mail::SpamAssassin FELICITYTheo Van Dinter co-maintJMASON
Mail::SpamAssassin JMASON Justin Masonmodulelist
btw, now that the ASF have a CMS system, it may be worth investigating
a port to that away from webmake -- the problem with the latter is
that it's hard to get a stable foundation to build it on, and an
officially-supported CMS would avoid that.
--j.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 03:43, Kevin A.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 05:42, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 08/06/2011 7:12 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/
I just noticed that the bb-* masschecks running on
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 04:19, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/2011 6:19 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
+1 here though I have NOT tested with the tars built below yet as they
should be identical to 3.3.2-rc2. There are a lot of great fixes and the
perl 5.12.X+ compatibility work
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:33, Alex Broens su...@alexb.ch wrote:
# automatically-generated; see
'~/ftp/spamassassin/hack/xmailer/notes.xmailer'
# in jm's homedir for details. (or ask jm)
Asking Justin...:)
How do you generate these?
thx
here's the contents of that file:
Procedure to
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 06:44, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/28/2011 8:09 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Actually my impression is the devs do care. But it seems no one knows
the password to the signing keys, so they can't make a release and sign
it.
--Quanah
I know the
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 17:04, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 04/28, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I therefore propose that folks should get in whatever they can to
the 3.3.x svn branch, and whatever is there on May 4th I will cut
On 04/29, Justin Mason wrote:
+1 (from the sidelines ;)
On 04
The use of $_[1] was for performance reasons -- it saves copying the
function argument to a new reference. However if the latter causes
bugs, which seems to be the case, then +1 for that patch!
--j.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 14:00, Matt Elson
melson+mailing_lists.spamassassin_...@fastmail.net
hi all --
I've been having some problems with the SOUGHT generation backend --
it appears current trunk's mass-check is taking a very long time
(ie. multiple days for 20k messages), without the --net switch. I
noticed some warnings previously which referred to the AskDNS plugin.
is there a
On 2/18/2011 10:58 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
ok, I've found several samples of these messages and added them to the
corpus -- let me know if this is still an issue tomorrow
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:57, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Justin,
I noticed in the last day or so JM_SOUGHT_2 apparently has patterns in it
that are within the body of every Facebook message notification of this
type:
From: Facebook notification+5r4aw...@facebookmail.com
ok, I've found several samples of these messages and added them to the
corpus -- let me know if this is still an issue tomorrow
--j.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 20:08, Lawrence @ Rogers
lawrencewilli...@nl.rogers.com wrote:
On 18/02/2011 8:59 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09
I think those may be there due to being dependencies of real rules
-- but with scores of 0.0 that seems pointless. Investigation would
be useful
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 14:06, Yet Another Ninja axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, T_* rules should *not* be published.
I see a bunch in
2011/2/4 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 04:15 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 16:35 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I am not sure who smf is, but are they aware that test rules without
tflags nopublish could possibly be auto-promoted
2011/2/3 Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com:
On 2/2/2011 11:52 PM, João Gouveia wrote:
Thanks for the clear specs Warren, that helps ;-)
We shall try to do it like that.
I still need to setup a proper environment for this. Hopefully on this
next weekend.
Saw my previous post about
2011/2/2 Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com:
On 2/1/2011 1:02 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Yikes indeed.
Maybe Joao should answer these himself...
Given the numbers, is that purely trap driven? Is there a legion human
users manually verifying the spam?
What exactly does filter
ah, my apologies -- I'd forgotten about that. As the bug notes, we
never completed instructions to reliably push an update, so I'm not
really sure what the correct approach is
--j.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:02, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/19/2011 11:58 AM, Justin
hmm -- works fine for me. what does ls -l spam-darxus.log look like
in the masses dir? mine looks like:
-rw-r--r-- 1 jm jm 18340011 Jan 19 05:06 trunk/masses/spam-jm.log
Warren's script may be worth a try though ;)
--j.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 21:58, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
$
BTW, I am entirely in favour of changing other people's sandbox rules,
if they are making it into production, haven't been touched in several
months and are likely unmaintained. (It might be friendly to mail
them to notify that you're making the change, however, but that's up
to you, ymmv.)
--j.
tflags nopublish gets my vote.
--j.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:02, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/16/2011 11:52 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
BTW, I am entirely in favour of changing other people's sandbox rules,
if they are making it into production, haven't been touched
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6365
What about this issue? How do we force a sa-update push? I'm guessing it
is a matter of logging into zones and manually running a script?
regarding this -- I'm a little out of the loop and can't say for sure. That bug
seems to
I like the sound of SvnPubSub btw
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 01:32, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
Looks like infra is going to want us to move our website to their new CMS
at some point. It sounds OK from Paul's blog post.
Daryl
Original Message
hi Marco --
there's lots of room to investigate. That blog post details the
fundamentals of the JM_SOUGHT
ruleset, which is live and in production and has been for several
years -- so that works ;)
But association rules -- automatically-generated meta rules -- still
have plenty of room for
btw, the thing about these spam pages is the attachments; I think they
become indexed in Google. so it's important to ensure they're
deleted, as they will survive even without the page they're supposedly
attached to.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 14:05, Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org wrote:
Dear
fixed -- and the code is in svn, have fun.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:39, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
no detection in that rules for now :(
with leads me to my next question, will the sought generator be public
sometime ?
--
xpoint
did someone check in something that broke SPF?
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/SpamAssassin-trunk/5612/testReport/
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:50, Apache Hudson Server
hud...@hudson.zones.apache.org wrote:
See http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/SpamAssassin-trunk/changes
+1 on that.
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 19:33, Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com wrote:
Todd Rinaldo wrote, On 6/05/10 3:56 AM:
SpamAssassin 3.4.0/trunk has all of the perl 5.12 patches required to
keep SpamAssassin from flooding logs with deprecation messages. Is
there a target release date on
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 00:57, Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com wrote:
Adam Katz wrote, On 25/04/10 8:22 AM:
Today, I saw this in svn at masses/README.perceptron:
See this that Justin posted to sa-dev that explains the history of our
using GA, then perceptron, then back to GA.
It also
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 19:36, Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com wrote:
The ruleqa system is very slow to crunch its results, and even slow to
display them. I'd like to see it have a caching system for data it has
completed processing and maybe find some way to improve its ability to
handle the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 21:15, Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Justin Mason j...@jmason.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 19:36, Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com wrote:
The ruleqa system is very slow to crunch its results, and even slow to
display them
Any .de-based committers/PMCers interested? ;)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Gabor Szabo szab...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 08:46
Subject: SpamAssassin on LinuxTag Berlin
To: us...@spamassassin.apache.org
hi,
the Perl community is going to have a Perl booth on
fyi.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 18:24
Subject: [NOTICE] compromised jira passwords
To: commun...@apache.org
Hello Apache community@ [1],
As you are probably aware we have been working to restore services
that
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 18:56, Sidney Markowitz sid...@apache.org wrote:
Apache Hudson Server wrote, On 6/04/10 3:51 AM:
[locks-and-latches] All the locks released
FATAL: Timer already cancelled.
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Timer already cancelled.
at
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 18:45, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 24/03/2010 11:42, Justin Mason wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:34, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 24/03/2010 11:24, Justin Mason wrote:
So it sounds like, when the Change Several Bugs At Once option is
used
hey John --
that URI issue is now fixed.
regarding overlap: the log file on spamassassin2 , /home/automc/freqsd/log ,
has this for the most recent OVERLAP file generation:
creating: /export/home/ruleqadb/20100321/r925742-n/OVERLAP.new (OVERLAP)
started Wed Mar 31 12:26:07 2010...
so it
yeah, sorry, it wasn't. ;) Moving the builds to a new Solaris build machine.
--j.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 14:55, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Apache Hudson Server wrote:
See
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/SpamAssassin-trunk/5183/changes
Changes:
[ccing Mark]
Mark, we are discussing a recent bugzilla issue -- I attempted to move
all bugs on the 3.3.1 target milestone to 3.3.2, and in the process
put them all into the Security group. this is the second time I've
done this ;)
2010/3/24 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
If my
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:34, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 24/03/2010 11:24, Justin Mason wrote:
[ccing Mark]
Mark, we are discussing a recent bugzilla issue -- I attempted to move
all bugs on the 3.3.1 target milestone to 3.3.2, and in the process
put them all into the Security
/me hides
oops. This is pretty crappy UI :(
2010/3/23 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
And again. During a mass TM change, all changed bugs have been set to
Security. I just cleaned up that mess, moved them back open and even
restored their original component. Manually. *sigh*
I
2010/3/20 Sander Temme san...@temme.net:
On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 02:39 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
What happened to http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/ ?
It bring up a list of ASF projects under its 'Product:' menu,
Talking about the
Release Notes -- Apache SpamAssassin -- Version 3.3.1
Introduction
This is a minor release, adding a new URIBL network rule (URIBL_DBL_SPAM, for
the
Spamhaus DBL).
Downloading and availability
Downloads are available from:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:00, Doc Schneider mad...@maddoc.net wrote:
Mark Martinec wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/PROPOSED-3.3.1.txt
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/
this is now using the updates.spamassassin.org rules tarball,
repackaged; the code tarball is effectively
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:12, Yet Another Ninja sa-l...@alexb.ch wrote:
On 2010-03-18 12:04, Justin Mason wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:00, Doc Schneider mad...@maddoc.net wrote:
Mark Martinec wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/PROPOSED-3.3.1.txt
http://people.apache.org/~jm
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:14, Justin Mason j...@jmason.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:12, Yet Another Ninja sa-l...@alexb.ch wrote:
On 2010-03-18 12:04, Justin Mason wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:00, Doc Schneider mad...@maddoc.net wrote:
Mark Martinec wrote:
http
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 23:23, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
On 16/03/2010 12:47 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
2010/3/16 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
Includes stuff like T_URIBL_BLACK_OVERLAP which doesn't seem to be meant
for publishing, but testing only.
it's
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 00:14, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
First, I still agree that we need a way to generate a rule update using
the latest svn versions of rules for *emergency updates*.
On 16/03/2010 8:52 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 00:36, Daryl C
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 00:23, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
On 16/03/2010 10:36 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:52, Justin Mason j...@jmason.org wrote:
For long term use, though, we'll need some way to cut a rules tarball
using what's in SVN right now
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 01:04, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
Only in 3.003001.NET/updates_spamassassin_org: languages
Only in 3.003001.NET/updates_spamassassin_org: local.cf
Only in 3.003001.NET/updates_spamassassin_org: regression_tests.cf
These, or some of them,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 00:56, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
On 15/03/2010 7:13 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 22:59 +, Justin Mason wrote:
2010/3/15 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The following 30
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 00:36, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
If we're publishing rule updates for 3.3 from trunk I don't see why we'd
generate a rule tarball from the branch (with sandbox rules, sans
scores, anyway). If you install 3.3 using sa-update to get the rules
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 13:18, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
A diff between the proposed 3.3.1 and trunk reveals a couple of
trivialities which should go into 3.3.2 (or into 3.3.1 if there will be
a re-cut).
3.3:
Backported docs spelling fixes and CREDITS update from trunk,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:52, Justin Mason j...@jmason.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 00:36, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
If we're publishing rule updates for 3.3 from trunk I don't see why we'd
generate a rule tarball from the branch (with sandbox rules, sans
scores
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/PROPOSED-3.3.1.txt
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/
this is now using the updates.spamassassin.org rules tarball,
repackaged; the code tarball is effectively unchanged, but rebuilt
anyway just out of paranoia.
--
--j.
I'm cutting a real tarball now btw.
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:52, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
On Sunday March 14 2010 10:36:41 Justin Mason wrote:
Thanks! I don't think they'll do the trick though; release tarballs
have a few additional tweaks.
Build/README has the process
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/PROPOSED-3.3.1.txt
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/
please vote!
md5sum of archive files:
2290490889b2d91f71a3104eaf9c5cd3 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.1.tar.bz2
e70096d6baa695371b413e6691a49038 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.1.tar.gz
that this deprecates
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/90_2tld.cf
for those who actually read any release notes :-)
On 2010-03-15 15:41, Justin Mason wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/PROPOSED-3.3.1.txt
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/
please vote!
md5sum of archive files
2010/3/15 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 18:21 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
--- 3.003001.TAR/updates_spamassassin_org.cf 2010-03-15
17:55:03.0 +0100
+++ 3.003001.NET/updates_spamassassin_org.cf 2010-03-15
17:53:33.0 +0100
@@ -1,2 +1,2
2010/3/15 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The following 30 rules appear to have NOT assigned a score in the
tarball. :(
DEAR_BENEFICIARY
DEAR_EMAIL
FROM_MISSP_DYNIP
FROM_MISSP_MSFT
HDRS_MISSP
IMG_DIRECT_TO_MX
LOTTO_AGENT
Thanks! I don't think they'll do the trick though; release tarballs
have a few additional tweaks.
Build/README has the process, is correct except for the bug I marked
as a blocker in my mail on Friday.
On Sunday, March 14, 2010, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
Is this it then: ?
Current status as I see it:
BLOCKER:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6311 - update-rules
script, therefore 3.3.0 build process, generates an update tarball missing
72_active.cf
I think the workaround for this bug no longer works due to changes
to the
No -- if it's ham, it's ham! Thanks.
On Sunday, March 7, 2010, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Justin Mason wrote:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100306-r919715-n/URIBL_DBL/detail#all
it looks good except for the jhardin corpus, which has a comparatively
high
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100306-r919715-n/URIBL_DBL/detail#all
it looks good except for the jhardin corpus, which has a comparatively
high FP rate. looking at the logs they all seem to contain other
strong spam signs... could you check them?
--
--j.
yeah, you're right :( I'll have to work on that.
2010/3/2 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
(Sorry for the broken threading. Started typing, before picking one of
the many possible posts for reply.)
I think I might have found a corner-case problem with the patch (in
trunk) for
2010/3/3 Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de:
OK -- I've addressed guenther's issue, and cleaned up that conditional code
in
a more consistent way with the existing code. Also, the reason the rule was
now not hitting was because I used the wrong rule type in the first place for
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.
--
--j.
wrote:
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
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 is as follows:
agreed, this is a must, please comment:
6335 Spamhaus DBL
another must
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 23:36, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
On 22/02/2010 3:18 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Could someone provide (or point to in the source) the criteria used for
the masscheck making the T_ or not to T_ decision?
AFAIK the logic is buried somewhere in the
this is awesome, Daryl! ;) nice one.
--j.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 23:41, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
On 23/02/2010 10:55 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
Rules checked into trunk are propagated automatically to the 3.3.x channel?
Yes.
If not, and only rules checked into
2010/2/17 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I'm seeing the same explosion in run times.
Looking at commits between r909296 and r910179, I think the issue may be
with one a new rule in jhardin/20_misc_testing.cf from r910157:
+rawbody
yep -- lots of pollution :( I've taken that mbox out again.
2010/2/7 João Gouveia joao.gouv...@anubisnetworks.com:
Hi,
Found another ham corpus that doesn't look very hammy to me:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100206-r907194-n/T_RCVD_IN_ANBREP_L3?mclog=ham-net-jm
--
--j.
Somewhere in 'backend' would probably be a good place btw
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 05:05, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
On 01/02/2010 5:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
Daryl, did something get checked in that shouldn't have? confusing
errors here...
I forgot that the sandbox
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 03:21, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
On 27/01/2010 5:11 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 05:10, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
On 26/01/2010 11:02 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 26/01/2010 10:33 PM, Warren Togami
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 05:10, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
spamassas...@dostech.ca wrote:
On 26/01/2010 11:02 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 26/01/2010 10:33 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
How are we going to do the proposed auto-promote rules with nightly
masscheck from trunk to 3.3.x stable sa-update?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:11, Justin Mason j...@jmason.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:57, Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com wrote:
I was a bit surprised to see all of those security bugs show up with the
mass move to 3.3.1 target. I did a search for open bugs in the Security
component
On Wednesday January 27 2010 12:23:18 Justin Mason wrote:
Something's going haywire with bugzilla, at least for me.
If I load this bug:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4530
and attempt to change Component from Security to Plugins, and Assigned To
from secur
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 13:31, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 27/01/2010 08:00, Justin Mason wrote:
hi guys. Could one of the bugz wizards check this out?
(a hunch: sounds like database-commit problems.)
I just checked this on 4530 and it worked for me.
It might be because I only
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 14:14, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
Günther,
This one was not. Verified, no changes (though claimed) a per the exact
instructions above.
However, the second attempt just changed Component to Rules, as I tried
both times. The difference is, that on the
I've had to make a few changes to the site for 3.3.0 -- please see if
you can spot any issues in advance of the release. Here's the staging
area for the updated site changes:
http://buildbot.spamassassin.org/staging/website/
http://buildbot.spamassassin.org/staging/website/downloads.html
here's the new recut.
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/ :
md5sum of archive files:
58a439f930b49b0a3747c6caa738acc6 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.tar.bz2
a24302ff6a3c410b5c6b84041877c914 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.tar.gz
ed99edd70819579bcc722411e1da49a1 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.zip
argh! sorry, sent out the wrong sums, as Warren spotted. The correct sums are:
md5sum of archive files:
15af629a95108bf245ab600d78ae754b Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.tar.bz2
38078b07396c0ab92b46386bc70ef086 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.tar.gz
e66856085ca14947146d57a40a51beaa
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 16:34, Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/21/2010 11:16 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
sha1sum of archive files:
5e639ccf5773e3a1781285ea104f05394b5ea1b0
Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.tar.bz2
598eebc4791dc7c7b958d87f9a33ecaef12edd09 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.tar.gz
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:29, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
proposed release announcement mail is there, too. We need 3 +1 votes
and no -1's over the next 72 hours to bless this as an official
release.
Here is my +1 for both the code and the rules.
One caveat with the
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 14:27, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
it should be pretty harmless in terms of effects on users, but will
increase the anubisnetworks.com
query load, which they may not appreciate.
I don't think it needs to block 3.3.0, though.
Good catch. I never
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 14:59, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
On Wednesday 20 January 2010 15:42:10 Justin Mason wrote:
I'm not certain, but I believe the __* rules _will_ be run, whether
they're called from a meta rule or not, unless explicitly disabled
using score __FOO 0
can someone open a bug about this issue?
ignore, just spotted it. ;)
--
--j.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 16:53, Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/20/2010 11:37 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
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
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:09, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
Are the ADVANCE_FEE_*_NEW rules in the tarball? If so, we should probably
recut after I mark those as nopublish... {blush}
nope, they're not.
--
--j.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:43, Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote, On 19/01/10 3:41 PM:
Skimming...
On 18/01/2010 9:10 PM, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
There is a new signing key for the 3.3.0 release and which will be used
for sa-update rules starting now.
We're
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:10, Sidney Markowitz sid...@sidney.com wrote:
Justin Mason wrote, On 19/01/10 12:55 PM:
proposed release announcement mail is there, too. We need 3 +1 votes
and no -1's over the next 72 hours to bless this as an official
release.
I have an issue with the proposed
Please try out the tarballs at:
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/
md5sum of archive files:
58a439f930b49b0a3747c6caa738acc6 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.tar.bz2
a24302ff6a3c410b5c6b84041877c914 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.tar.gz
ed99edd70819579bcc722411e1da49a1 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0.zip
Warren, could you rename the _files_ there? otherwise filenames will
collide between rc3 (unofficial) and rc3 (official). I can see those
tarballs being downloaded and the source URL context lost.
fwiw, I think we're probably going to do an rc4. I suspect that
slowdown without use bytes bug is
ugh. this bit me again -- I'm changing the process to build on the
zone instead. bloody OS upgrades :(
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 19:10, Justin Mason j...@jmason.org wrote:
I would prefer if you could fIx the script; it's almost certainly just
an embedded path in the signing commands. But either
Downloads are available from:
http://people.apache.org/~jm/devel/
md5sum of archive files:
015d42846c819ce3aa286650bb54b53e Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.bz2
be83248ba40ed12a20bc1f8aab8cfa7f Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc3.tar.gz
a35927c52d9554f0305af584097314c2
While the sa_compile might be expected, the timeout bug is a blocker IMO.
Should I open a bug or reopen a past bug?
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message - From: Justin Mason j...@jmason.org
To: SpamAssassin Dev dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 10:29 AM
Subject
6.36
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 17:15, Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/15/2010 11:38 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
t/timeout.ok 15/33# Failed test 16 in
t/timeout.t at line 99
t/timeout.FAILED test 16
Failed 1/33 tests, 96.97% okay
On Friday, January 15, 2010, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote:
Looks ok, except again for the missing 'license: apache',
'recommends:' and 'resources:' sections in META.yml
due to using an older ExtUtils::MakeMaker (6.42 vs. 6.55).
Mark, what version of MakeMaker is needed to
1 - 100 of 1307 matches
Mail list logo
