https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=550
Sidney Markowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sid...@sidney.com
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=550
--- Comment #3 from Ojhan panjang ---
Crying bugs
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=550
Ojhan panjang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||berryhatras...@gmail.com
--
You
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
Sidney Markowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #27 from Sidney Markowitz ---
(In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #26)
> Ok there's now a function to clear out any external rules.
It needed the add_header all Status line that is in 01_test_rules.cf, but after
that one
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #26 from Henrik Krohns ---
Ok there's now a function to clear out any external rules.
sql_based*.t are completely self sufficient. Except for 20_aux_tlds.cf to not
complain about missing tlds..
Sendingt/SATest.pm
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #25 from Sidney Markowitz ---
(In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #24)
> I'll see if I can isolate it today.
That's great. What I'm realizing more as I work on this is that there should be
more use of putting test-specific
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #24 from Henrik Krohns ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #21)
> The biggest change in the test compared to what it did in 3.4.6 is that it
> checks for an exact score result. The subtests look for scores 0, -2, -4,
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #23 from Henrik Krohns ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #22)
> The test t/spf.t calls disable_compat "welcomelist_blocklist" and then
> expects to see USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST in the results. Is that a correct thing
>
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #22 from Sidney Markowitz ---
The test t/spf.t calls disable_compat "welcomelist_blocklist" and then expects
to see USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST in the results. Is that a correct thing to have in
the test now, or should it be changed
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #21 from Sidney Markowitz ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #19)
> I don't think it is worthwhile to rewrite sql_based_welcomelist.t. As you
> say, other rules could do the same thing with data/nice/002.
Now that
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #20 from Kevin A. McGrail ---
One POV to consider: I view the code and the rules as separate releases.
Making sure the code can run with the rules is the goal, not testing the rules.
So having the minimal rules/config/etc. in
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #19 from Sidney Markowitz ---
(In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #18)
> For example it's assumed that data/nice/002 hits these rules to get a -2
> score, which the string match expects
>
> -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #18 from Henrik Krohns ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #17)
> Along those lines, I would really like it if someone could look at
> sql_based_welcomelist.t and figure out how to make it dependent on much
> fewer
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #17 from Sidney Markowitz ---
Answering in reverse order:
(In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #16)
> we should stop SATest.pm from copying any cf from trunk/rules at all
That's something I was already considering while
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #16 from Henrik Krohns ---
And if you/we want to go with the 01_test_rules.cf route, when we should stop
SATest.pm from copying any cf from trunk/rules at all. Then is it's 100% clear
that tests only use something from
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #15 from Henrik Krohns ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #14)
> Ok, the real problem seems to be frustratingly simple.
>
> t/SATest.pm uses t/data/01_test_rules.cf for its rules so it does not have
> to depend on
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #14 from Sidney Markowitz ---
Ok, the real problem seems to be frustratingly simple.
t/SATest.pm uses t/data/01_test_rules.cf for its rules so it does not have to
depend on the ever changing contents of rules. When running in a
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #13 from Sidney Markowitz ---
(In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #12)
> Primarily, I would likely look at what changed between 3.4.6 and 4.0
I can do that. I do think it would be much simpler all around if the tests did
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #12 from Kevin A. McGrail ---
Sidney,
Primarily, I would likely look at what changed between 3.4.6 and 4.0 since
those don't look like new tests to see why they now fail. I would double
confirm that 3.4.6 passes a make test
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #11 from Sidney Markowitz ---
I identified 12 tests that require a total of 20 rules/*.cf files.
That does not count tests that I didn't run, including network and root tests
and any others that got skipped in my configuration.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #10 from Sidney Markowitz ---
Now I tried it without the link to t.rules and it still passed. I guess more of
the failures had to do with the too long path than I had recognized.
Next step, I'll binary search through the files
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #9 from Sidney Markowitz ---
(In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #8)
> What's the behavior of a 3.4.6 tar ball and make test? What's in that
> MANIFEST?
3.4.6 just works. The only .cf file it has in it's MANIFEST that
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #8 from Kevin A. McGrail ---
What's the behavior of a 3.4.6 tar ball and make test? What's in that
MANIFEST?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #7 from Sidney Markowitz ---
Are the files in t.rules used by make test? If that's the case then why not
include them in MANIFEST just like the files in the t directory?
I deleted the rulesrc symlink and that seems not to be
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
Kevin A. McGrail changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kmcgr...@apache.org
--- Comment
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #5 from Henrik Krohns ---
Basically the tests have went too far in the "test that my trunk/rules commit
works", instead of being self-sufficient tests for testing internal functions.
Like for example now many tests assume to
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #4 from Henrik Krohns ---
Yeah it seems lots of files like 10_default_prefs.cf is required too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #3 from Sidney Markowitz ---
Following up some questions and suggestions from Kevin on the dev list:
Copying 20_aux_tlds.cf to the rules directory fixes some but not all of the
failures.
Some failures I got were the result of
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #2 from Henrik Krohns ---
For 60_bayes_stopwords.cf there is no need. Bayes.pm has a hardcoded stopword
list in case no cf is found. I don't think it would even have any effect on
tests.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
Henrik Krohns changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||apa...@hege.li
--- Comment #1 from
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
Sidney Markowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Undefined |4.0.0
CC|
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
Bug ID: 7982
Summary: make test failures running from 4.0.0 install package
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 4.0.0
Hardware: PC
OS: Mac OS X
Status: NEW
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5280
Henrik Krohns changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|NEW
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Comment #44 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2010-01-27 04:21:13
UTC ---
Tested 3.3.0 under FreeBSD 8.0 jail, works fine.
This is now in the released 3.3.0.
The new SPAMD_LOCALHOST env.var. should probably be documented
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[review] spamc/spamd 'make |spamc/spamd
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|spamc/spamd 'make test' |[doc]
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
Justin Mason j...@jmason.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.2.6 |3.3.1
---
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Comment #42 from Mark Martinec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-16 10:04:17 PST
---
P.S. The new SPAMD_LOCALHOST env.var. should probably be documented somewhere.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Comment #40 from Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-06 02:16:55 PST
---
+1
it'd be nice to hear if this fixes the original reporter's problem.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.2.5 |3.2.6
---
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|spamc/spamd 'make test' |[review] spamc/spamd 'make
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-11 05:48 ---
Snowcrash, could you please revert the test patch attachment 4335, install the
patch in attachment 4260 and confirm that you can then make test in FreeBSD
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-09 16:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=4260)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4260action=view)
Fix, adding SPAMD_LOCALHOST option for use in
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-09 16:27 ---
there is a typo in comment #36 in the example which should be
make test SPAMD_LOCALHOST=10.1.2.3
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-01 03:50 ---
I think it's safe to say that we can target it for a later release.
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|SA 32x/r607737 'make test' |spamc/spamd 'make test
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-01 10:54 ---
progress, i think!
co r607876
apply patch @
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4225action=view
config/make/install as before
kill any
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-01 16:39 ---
if i try this as sudo -u spamd make test -- since we're not supposed to
run tests as root, right? -- it fails as before
Did you make as root? If you did,
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-01 19:03 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
Did you make as root?
nor originally; originally, as spamd.
but most recently, yes.
If you did, did you chown -R spamd . ?
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.2.5
--- Additional
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
Summary: SA 32x/r607737 'make test' failures (139/2082) on
FreeBSD
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.2.3
Platform: Other
OS/Version: FreeBSD
Status: NEW
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 08:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=4222)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4222action=view)
verbose output of 'make test' for failed tests
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 10:50 ---
I can confirm this in branch 3.2 current svn, simplifying the test case a little
bit. I'm using MacOS X 10.5. I haven't tried this on a non-BSD system, but I
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 11:04 ---
Running spamd without --daemonize and with -D it appears that the make test
never calls it.
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 11:10 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I started up spamd using the simpler command line
spamd --local --port=48373 --listen 192.168.0.2 --ipv4only --daemonize
so
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 11:54 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Ok, I'll close this bug. It does look like there is some bit rot and/or
missing
documentation in t/README related to trying to
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 12:45 ---
Whoops. That would be a strange coincidence, because the errors are just what
you would expect trying to run the test with SPAMD_HOST set.
Can you verify
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 13:12 ---
Looking at the verbose output you attached, the result for spamc_B.t has
# Using Test.pm version 1.25
/usr/local/bin/perl SATest.pl -Mredirect
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 13:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=4223)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4223action=view)
spam_b_verbose.txt
--- You are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 13:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=4224)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4224action=view)
spamd.err.1.txt
--- You are receiving
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 13:41 ---
doing,
sh /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd.sh stop
cd /usr/local/build/spamassassin
# clean house
pkg_delete bsdpan-Mail-SpamAssassin\*
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 13:59 ---
89310] warn: spamd: unauthorized connection from jMAIL.internal.net
[10.0.0.200] at port 50185 at ../spamd/spamd.raw line 1211.
That explains the errors,
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 14:03 ---
This is the spamc command line from the log,
../spamc/spamc -F data/spamc_blank.cf -d 127.0.0.1 -p 56660 -B data/spam/bsmtp
Does anyone have any idea how
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 14:11 ---
What's the actual IP on the host machine? 10.0.0.200 maybe?
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 14:18 ---
I would guess from everything else here that 10.0.0.200 is the machine's ip
address, but how does a tcp socket opened up to 127.0.0.1 get seen as coming
from
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 14:26 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
What's the actual IP on the host machine? 10.0.0.200 maybe?
yup. from HOST's rc.conf,
...
defaultrouter=10.0.0.100
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 14:48 ---
What do you see from the command
netstat -nr
especially for 127.0.01, is there a line beginning with
127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
or anything else with
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 15:12 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
What do you see from the command
netstat -nr
especially for 127.0.01, is there a line beginning with
127.0.0.1
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 15:45 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I think we need someone who knows more about networks and/or FreeBSD than I
do.
What does the @ HOST and @ JAIL mean when you
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 18:37 ---
Ok, so if I understand it correctly you are trying to install spamassassin on
JAIL, that's where make test fails, and you can't run netstat -nr on that
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 19:08 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
Ok, so if I understand it correctly
if you DO, please fill ME in, cuz, networking between-n-betwixt fbsd jails seems
to be ~ 33%
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 19:20 ---
it may (?) also be worth noting that freebsd jails, unlike full VM
implementations, do NOT (currently) have separate networking stacks from the
host.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 19:49 ---
I think I may have found what it is about jails that is causing the problem. I
did a bit of Googling about FreeBSD jails and I found this quote at
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 20:26 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
your google-fu in this matter is far superior to mine!
thanks for the refs.
As far as I can tell the only thing that is
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-31 23:49 ---
are you, though, suggesting that it shouldn't be bothered with?
No, I wasn't suggesting that and I have been thinking about how to deal with it.
You
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5525
Summary: make test failures near t/spamc_opt, bayes
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.2.1
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5525
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5343
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5343
Summary: 'make test' failures: sa trunk/v3.2.0-pre1-r499012; lots
of test-only --lint errors
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: All
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5280
Summary: t/spamd_kill_restart_rr make test failures on Cygwin
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5280
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-05 14:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=3817)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3817action=view)
Output from make test failures
--- You
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5280
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-05 14:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=3818)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3818action=view)
spamd.err.1 log file
This is the log file
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5280
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-05 15:05 ---
Inconsistent behavior here, I ran the test again after updating svn again, now
it's passing! But in my tests of using spamd, I have been seeing this
Theo Van Dinter writes:
I was testing out my patch for bug 5056 and noticed a bunch of make test
failures. I thought it was due to my patch, but even after removing it I get
the failures...
re_base_extraction doesn't fail, but displays debug output when run. also, it
appears to use
I was testing out my patch for bug 5056 and noticed a bunch of make test
failures. I thought it was due to my patch, but even after removing it I get
the failures...
re_base_extraction doesn't fail, but displays debug output when run. also, it
appears to use the default bayes db
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
According to the SPF people, we shouldn't
be using -all on a domain that may possible emit mail. So I changed
the record...
snip
If you can list all sending
Justin Mason wrote:
According to the SPF people, we shouldn't
be using -all on a domain that may possible emit mail
Even if, as I think, ~all is correct if you can enumerate all legal
senders for the domain, there still is a problem with making our test
depend on the current configuration of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sidney Markowitz writes:
Justin Mason wrote:
According to the SPF people, we shouldn't
be using -all on a domain that may possible emit mail
Even if, as I think, ~all is correct if you can enumerate all legal
senders for the domain, there
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
According to the SPF people, we shouldn't
be using -all on a domain that may possible emit mail. So I changed
the record...
snip
If you can list all sending domains, sending ip addresses, and ISP mail
servers that are allowed to send mail from a
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
Even if, as I think, ~all is correct if you can enumerate all legal
senders for the domain, there still is a problem with making our test
depend on the current configuration of something that is being used for
some other purpose. There is always the risk that there will be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sidney Markowitz writes:
I fixed the test failure in t/debug.t checking in to r155617.
The test was just missing a new dbg message tag, replacetags, so I added
it to the list.
I'm less sure about what is the correct thing to do for the
Justin Mason wrote:
According to the SPF people, we shouldn't
be using -all on a domain that may possible emit mail. So I changed
the record...
That can't be right. Try out the wizard at
http://spf.pobox.com/wizard.html?mydomain=spamassassin.org
It gives you two choices in the last question
t/debug.t and t/spf.t both have failures. I'm not sure how long ago they
started failing as the failures are hidden by the warning-only failures
in rule_names.t.
Is there a way that we can distinguish between rule_names and the other
failures so that we can go back to sending notification emails
I fixed the test failure in t/debug.t checking in to r155617.
The test was just missing a new dbg message tag, replacetags, so I added
it to the list.
I'm less sure about what is the correct thing to do for the failure in
t/spf.t. In that case there is a test for SPF_HELO_FAIL in the test
spam.
$ svnversion .
154883M
(modification is the spec file so I can build the rpm)
t/rule_namesok 14/1075 Found anti-pattern: P_78 =
DRUGS_ERECTILE,
t/rule_namesok 15/1075# Failed test 88 in SATest.pm at line 558
t/rule_namesok 18/1075 Found
98 matches
Mail list logo
