On 13/09/2011 5:35 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:29 PM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-09-13 22:23, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
We waste so much time backporting to the last branch. And trunk has been
incredibly stable. I hate to see releases that aren't taken from trunk,
seems like a
On 13/09/2011 8:29 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Alex, what are your thoughts on NOT creating a 3.4 branch and continuing
with trunk for development? You seem to be pro the concept above and it
makes sense that if we switch to rtc on trunk say 1 week or so before a
release date as defined in the
On 26/08/2011 10:37 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I don't think we need anything that official. We are trying to fix a
legitimate problem and I believe their IT people will be interested in
trying to resolve the issue. At worst, they can modify their cron to
only try 1x per day.
I'm -1 on asking
Was performance benchmarked before and after this change?
Daryl
On 23/07/2011 5:41 PM, jhar...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jhardin
Date: Sat Jul 23 21:41:27 2011
New Revision: 1150225
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1150225view=rev
Log:
Add per-rule timing (debug ruletimes channel) for
On 28/06/2011 2:47 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 6/28/2011 2:33 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 06/28, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
my vote on the matter. A brand new morning in my timezone and
1140483 appears to have resolved the issue and been published. All
$ host -ttxt
On 27/06/2011 5:35 PM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-06-27 23:28, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/27/2011 11:22 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Who has the access to do an emergency sa-update? Is it only Daryl?
AFAIK only Daryl knows how to do it. The last time I tried to follow
documented procedure I
On 24/06/2011 4:53 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 6/24/2011 5:06 AM, Randal, Phil wrote:
DNS needs updating to point to the new rules file.
I ended up installing it manually.
Jun 24 10:03:03.344 [21447] dbg: channel: current version is 1104058,
new version is 1083704, skipping channel
It
On 16/06/2011 11:01 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Has anyone other than jm ever run this? It isn't clear what host this is
supposed to be run upon. zones like the previous step?
people.apache.org.
Daryl
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 the uploaded
corpora has stopped sometime recently. This runs on zones2 I think.
Unless somebody else fixes it first, I
On 07/06/2011 11:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr. 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 in this release.
OK. We
On 06/06/2011 9:28 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
We need +3 votes from PMC (or the release manager) to declare 3.3.2 an
official ASF release. This 3.3.2 release has no changes since 3.3.2-rc2.
Please do some testing before voting.
I believe ASF policy actual requires that there be 3 votes from
On 06/06/2011 11:36 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 5:27 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 06/06/2011 9:28 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
We need +3 votes from PMC (or the release manager) to declare 3.3.2 an
official ASF release. This 3.3.2 release has no changes since 3.3.2-rc2.
Please
On 25/05/2011 7:28 AM, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
I'm seeing a lot of merged duplicates rules and unless there's a heavy
reason to keep it this way I see this ugly sloppyness.
Would it be possible to clean this up?
Sandbox owners?
Comments?
What's the issue? One of the primary reasons for
On 23/05/2011 9:27 AM, John Hardin wrote:
All:
The rules on the 3.3 branch are pretty much stale (the last 3.3 rules
update was published 12/24/2010).
There is no masscheck+promotion process running on the 3.3 branch, and
rule sandbox updates (apart from bugfixes) are only being done with any
On 23/05/2011 3:53 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 23/05/2011 9:27 AM, John Hardin wrote:
I'd suggest that there should be nightly masschecks and rule
autopromotion and update generation for the production branch as well as
for trunk. We're doing a lot
What he said. +1
On 23/05/2011 6:02 PM, Michael Parker wrote:
On May 23, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
So, taking [Bug 6426] and [Bug 6544] as examples, what is
a sentiment about such? Just close after the change has been
commited to trunk for some time, or should we follow a
Could somebody please give me full rights to the wiki.
Thanks,
Daryl
On 17/05/2011 11:10 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I plan to write a script to handle reverting to a known good update in
an emergency before I re-enable the updates. The script will need to be
run as updatesd on the Solaris zone and will have syntax something like:
./revert-stable-update
On 18/05/2011 8:43 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 5/18/2011 2:27 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
How about we wait until we have the update system working again and
we're happy with a newly generated rules tarball. At that point we cut
3.3.2-rc2 for more testing.
The code works with existing
On 18/05/2011 8:13 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 5/17/2011 5:10 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Update 1104058 on the update mirrors.
No real changes... the last round of issues were rules that triggered
code issues -- unavoidable, I think.
I've made one important improvement. Scores
On 18/05/2011 10:32 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 5/18/2011 3:58 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I'm hoping you're already testing with the update you requested that you
get to test with before publishing the update in DNS.
Update 1104058 that is available on the sa-update mirrors (just
On 16/05/2011 10:30 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 5/16/2011 4:26 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 16/05/2011 5:59 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
However, I am using sa-update's rules version 1083704. What are your
thoughts on including 1083704.tar.gz as the rules tarball for 3.3.2
since sa
On 16/05/2011 5:59 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
However, I am using sa-update's rules version 1083704. What are your
thoughts on including 1083704.tar.gz as the rules tarball for 3.3.2
since sa-update is our focus and a rule tarball is just kind of a base
install moreso than the intended method
On 30/04/2011 6:05 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
BTW, I haven't seen any voting on 3.3 bugs for quite a while now.
Meanwhile the written policies allows releasing betas at anytime. So we
might be better off just cutting a beta right now instead of waiting.
I'll try to do it this weekend if nobody
On 21/04/2011 1:41 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Yep, I have a bunch of emails where google inserted a Received-SPF: pass
header that didn't hit SA's SPF_PASS rule. Then I started inserting that
header myself, and it hits SPF_PASS. So it is ignoring Received-SPF
headers from non-local
On 19/04/2011 4:10 AM, Steffen Schwigon wrote:
Steffen Schwigons...@renormalist.net writes:
Hi!
I volunteer to make a CPAN upload 3.3.2 from the 3.3 branch.
If you are interested, please give me co-maint on pause.cpan.org.
To make it even easier: I just need an OK from a developer here. I
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
On 23/03/2011 12:27 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Also, while this Perl bug is out there (which undoubtful will exists for
a long time on production machines), should we refrain from tflags
multiple body rules?
Guess we cannot push them, unless guarded by a version 3.3.2 if-block.
If that
On 20/03/2011 5:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
Anyone up for this? Guess this highlights the point we *do* need a way
to push some sort of emergency rule updates, as
On 21/03/2011 10:34 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
We're back above the corpus thresholds for nightly sa-update updates.
Yay!
And the update that just went out still contains the PILL_PRICE rules...
Maybe tomorrow. Dang.
No, it'll take a week, I
On 21/03/2011 10:37 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 20/03/2011 5:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6558
Not sure though, if I even can perform all steps necessary. :/
Anyone up for this? Guess
On 21/03/2011 10:39 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 21/03/2011 10:34 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
We're back above the corpus thresholds for nightly sa-update updates.
Yay!
And the update that just went out still contains the PILL_PRICE rules
On 21/03/2011 10:53 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 21/03/2011 10:34 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
We're back above the corpus thresholds for nightly sa-update updates.
Yay!
And the update that just went out
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 still an issue with it?
Here's what I did
Sorry for the delay, I've been fighting the flu again.
On 18/02/2011 4:16 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
How close are we to the threshold now?
As of today:
HAM: 261321 (15 required)
SPAM: 145500 (15 required)
Insufficient spam corpus to generate scores; aborting.
Daryl
On 27/01/2011 7:02 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 01/19/2011 11:58 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
ssh spamassassin.zones.apache.org
cd /home/updatesd/svn/spamassassin/build/mkupdates
[svn up appropriately]
sudo -u updatesd ./update-rules-3.3 3.3
see build/README for full details.
These
On 27/01/2011 6:14 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 1/26/2011 6:48 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 26/01/2011 10:12 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/26/2011 5:39 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Just came up on the users list. Escalating. ;) The facts:
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
On 26/01/2011 10:12 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/26/2011 5:39 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Just came up on the users list. Escalating. ;) The facts:
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
Rule update tarball
On 26/01/2011 11:48 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 26/01/2011 10:12 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/26/2011 5:39 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Just came up on the users list. Escalating. ;) The facts:
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
Corrected manual procedure... the at job needs to be run as updatesd:
On 27/01/2011 12:29 AM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Going forward... we, probably me, need to get an automated way to push
some sort of emergency rule update.
The current manually steps would be:
- un-tar an existing STABLE
On 09/12/2010 5:38 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
On Thursday December 9 2010 06:55:30 Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
FYI... rule updates have stopped due to the fixed dependency version for
NetAddr::IP. I *think* the modules are installed in jm's build dir on
spamassassin.zones.apache.org, but I could
FYI... rule updates have stopped due to the fixed dependency version for
NetAddr::IP. I *think* the modules are installed in jm's build dir on
spamassassin.zones.apache.org, but I could be mistaken. I'll try to
find time to poke around if nobody beats me to it.
Daryl
Original
If you're rsyncing zones for Anubis' DNSBL you'll want to update your
config for their new domains wl/bl.mailspike.net.
Daryl
Original Message
Subject: svn commit: r1037373 - in
/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/wtogami: 20_anubis.cf 20_mailspike.cf
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010
On 06/11/2010 4:59 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
[...] I can't find any mention of this mirror in the SA documentation or on the
SA Wiki. These sorts of things should be more public. [...]
After stripping all the mixing up between project volunteers and donated
resources on the one hand,
On 04/11/2010 8:22 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6508
In my experience this has been an important feature.
I know of a number of people that have setups like this:
trusted_networks 10.20.30.0/24
internal_networks 10.20.30.0/24
Whoa... do we know why this happened?
Daryl
On 31/10/2010 1:08 PM, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6504
John Hardinjhar...@impsec.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Nevermind, going into preferences and setting my timezone to not be
Toronto gets around my issue. I guess I'll let Mark know about this.
Daryl
On 31/10/2010 2:59 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Does anybody know how to fix my bugzilla account... I get errors like
this when I try to view a bug
broken
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:00:52 -0400
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca
Organisation: DOS Technologies
To: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Nevermind, going into preferences and setting my timezone to not be
Toronto gets around my issue. I guess I'll let Mark know about
On 31/10/2010 4:21 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Whoa... do we know why this happened?
The sandbox masscheck score generator is still generating zero scores
for things. You took a look at it a while back and twiddled it a bit,
but didn't completely fix
I can't access this bug for some reason. I get an undef error - Can't
locate Class/Singleton.pm error.
Any who... do we care about having error codes corresponding to binary
bits (the original codes were 0 1 2 4)? Should the new error code be 8?
Daryl
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
Subject: Evolution of Apache’s websites
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:34:06 -0700
From: Paul Querna p...@querna.org
To: Apache
On 20/10/2010 12:12 AM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
For some reason, not apparent in the extract.log, the nightly mass-check
rsync source rsync directory was empty. I ran the script manually as the
user release and all seems to be good.
The contents of /home/corpus-rsync/tagged_builds
For some reason, not apparent in the extract.log, the nightly mass-check
rsync source rsync directory was empty. I ran the script manually as
the user release and all seems to be good.
Daryl
It has been discussed. It's a non-trivial problem. If you search on
shortcut (on the users list, too) you'll be able to find a lot of the
history.
I think if you search for shortcircuit or short circuit you may turn
up more info, too.
BTW, there's a plugin to do this, too, if I'm not
If Dan's not on this list can somebody please ask him to make sure his
nightly logs are chmod'd 644. Currently they are 600 and causing things
to break. I don't seem to have his email address.
Thanks!
Daryl
I will attempt to take a look at a way to do a non-automatic update of
3.3 in the next couple of days.
Normally, you'd commit the rule to trunk and it'd show up in the stable
update after passing QA. Problem is, though, we haven't had enough
mass-check results lately for that to happen.
Daryl
On 14/07/2010 1:06 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
We haven't had an auto-update for a while as ham submissions have
dropped.
HAM: 145387 (15 required)
SPAM: 546888 (15 required)
Insufficient ham corpus to generate scores; aborting
We haven't had an auto-update for a while as ham submissions have dropped.
HAM: 145387 (15 required)
SPAM: 546888 (15 required)
Insufficient ham corpus to generate scores; aborting.
Currently the cut-off is set for ham no more than 38 months old.
Can anyone contribute more newer
On 15/05/2010 4:31 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I'd have to check the logs, but it could be that we're not meeting the
minimum ham/spam results that are required to generate an update.
I've got it set
On 11/05/2010 10:51 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Yeah, since early April the ham results have fallen below the 150k
message threshold to about 143k messages. 150k was already quite a bit
lower than I was really comfortable with but I guess we could
I'd have to check the logs, but it could be that we're not meeting the
minimum ham/spam results that are required to generate an update. I've
got it set to a minimum of 150,000 ham and spam each.
I know that it's still running. It looks like this week there weren't
enough results in the weekly
On 10/05/2010 10:46 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I'd have to check the logs, but it could be that we're not meeting the
minimum ham/spam results that are required to generate an update. I've
got it set to a minimum of 150,000 ham and spam each.
Yeah, since early April the ham results have
On 12/04/2010 6:50 PM, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6389
--- Comment #15 from Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com 2010-04-12 18:50:51 EDT
---
Just a follow-up because I had some investigations running when this was
closed...
On 08/04/2010 3:13 PM, John Hardin wrote:
The dos corpus isn't appearing in the last two nightly masschecks. Is
this a permanent change?
The UPS on my NFS server blew up. I need to find some cash and time to
get it replaced. Hopefully it won't be too long.
Daryl
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 not marked nopublish. that's probably why it's published.
As mentioned a couple
On 16/03/2010 1:22 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Most of the missing regular rules are in 72_scores.cf. Really no score
defined for the following rules.
DATE_DOTS
NSL_ORIG_FROM_41
Hrm. That's unexpected, but not a show stopper.
Daryl
On 16/03/2010 3:25 PM, John Hardin wrote:
What's odd is that there _is_ an explicit score on NSL_ORIG_FROM_41 in
my sandbox. A _low_ score. 41/8 is all of Africa.
By, long standing, design. When we were looking at adding lots of
rule-only committers we wanted to make sure that they couldn't
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. W. O'Shea
Just grab a recent nightly update, rename it, and use that. The safest
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, rather than what was there on the previous
night. in my opinion it's unsafe to
On 15/03/2010 6:59 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
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
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 rules appear to have NOT assigned a score in the
tarball. :(
I'd expect those
On 15/03/2010 1:21 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Only in 3.003001.NET/updates_spamassassin_org: 72_scores.cf
We should definitely include scores. As I just mentioned in another
message, I think that we should just ship a renamed nightly update as
the rule tarball for the release.
Only in
On 15/03/2010 12:17 PM, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 2010-03-15 17:13, Justin Mason wrote:
so that file no longer needs to be used?
nope... Its still mantained, for ppl using older SA versions, but will
disappear next year...
When SA 3.1.1 is released I'll make some noise so ppl stip using
On 15/03/2010 3:36 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 18:47 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
--- 3.003001.TAR/updates_spamassassin_org.cf2010-03-15
17:55:03.0 +0100
+++ 3.003001.NET/updates_spamassassin_org.cf2010-03-15
17:53:33.0 +0100
@@ -50
On 13/03/2010 7:58 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Well, maybe not quite. As recently mentioned we need to be careful
about how we go about releasing new network rules. If a rule causes a
new lookup to be done (including if, like in this case, other existing
lookups shared by this rule
On 13/03/2010 8:00 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
This brings up a couple questions:
1. How often are the scores for existing rules re-calculated? If
we shuffled some of data for the existing SURBL lists internally,
they'd presumably need to be rescored. Does that only happen at
release time?
To
On 13/03/2010 10:30 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 13/03/2010 8:00 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
This brings up a couple questions:
1. How often are the scores for existing rules re-calculated? If
we shuffled some of data for the existing SURBL lists
On 12/03/2010 4:29 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
As far as I know, all that really requires would be adding a rule and
a masscheck to confirm the scoring:
urirhssub URIBL_XS_SURBL multi.surbl.org.A 128
bodyURIBL_XS_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_XS_SURBL')
On 06/03/2010 6:47 AM, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
I'm seeing T_* rules in SA 3.3's active list.
T_SURBL_MULTI1,T_SURBL_MULTI2,T_SURBL_MULTI3,T_URIBL_BLACK_OVERLAP, etc
shouldn't these be excluded from publishing?
The script just auto-promos anything that is a net test. I just found
out
Infra has setup a role account for us to use strictly for our automated
stuff that involves svn commits. No new intellectual property (that
would require a CLA) is to be committed using this account. Any changes
to scripts, etc, must be checked in using a committer account.
Currently the
On 25/02/2010 3:44 PM, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from Henrik Krohns h...@hege.li 2010-02-25 20:44:48 UTC ---
Thanks, applied the quick fix to my sandbox rule, guess it should end up in
sa-update soon.
It'll show up in tomorrow night's update provided that the rule
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 3.3.x are auto scored, is this
really a good thing given that the masschecks are for trunk, not 3.3.x
branch?
Yeah, I don't see
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 ruleqa app.
build/mkupdates/listpromotable that created the active.list file just
On 22/02/2010 8:43 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I think both rules are getting bounced in and out due to the fluctuation
of who's been submitting results over the last week due to the bad rule
that got checked in (plus I don't currently submit Sunday
FYI... automated score generation and rule update releases for the 3.3
stable branch is now functional (actually, it has been for a week but
there haven't been enough mass-check submissions until now).
The update creation process includes testing of the rule updates on each
targeted version of
On 16/02/2010 11:56 AM, Kevin Golding wrote:
It seems very few people have uploaded masscheck results the past couple
of days. Given that I just noticed my usual ~15 minute run from
yesterday was still chugging along ~30 hours later (and this morning's
has been running for ~6 hours) I'm
On 16/02/2010 6:21 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 16/02/2010 11:56 AM, Kevin Golding wrote:
It seems very few people have uploaded masscheck results the past couple
of days. Given that I just noticed my usual ~15 minute run from
yesterday was still chugging along ~30 hours later
I rebooted the host. It ran out of memory.
Daryl
On 12/02/2010 10:05 PM, nag...@monitoring.apache.org wrote:
*** ASF Nagios ***
Notification Type: PROBLEM
Host: spamassassin.zones.apache.org
Address: 140.211.11.80
Service: CORPUS_RSYNC
State: CRITICAL
Info: Connection refused
On 13/02/2010 11:13 PM, João Gouveia wrote:
No nightly and network mass checks for 13 Feb are available on the ruleqa
site.
I'm guessing it's related to the outstanding nagios alert for corpus rsync
right?
This should no longer be an issue, I've rebooted the host.
Daryl
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Bug 6325] FH_HAS_XID Poor S/O, strong score.
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:09:48 -0500
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca
Organization: DOS Technologies
To: bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org
References: bug-6325...@https.issues.apache.org
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 rules can be more than a directory in depth.
The score-update generation code is still in my sandbox... it checks out
two copies of the tree.
On 29/01/2010 6:03 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 03:21, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
We were publishing automated sa-update updates for 3.3.0 (which was
until we released 3.3.0 the trunk updates). This isn't good since we're
not quite ready to automatically publish updates for stable
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 wrote:
How are we going to do the proposed auto-promote rules with nightly
On 26/01/2010 9:08 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Time to create a 3.3 branch and declare trunk as C-T-R again?
Mark
Yep. Feel free to go ahead and do it (it's just an svn copy ...).
Daryl
On 26/01/2010 10:33 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 01/26/2010 10:25 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 26/01/2010 9:08 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Time to create a 3.3 branch and declare trunk as C-T-R again?
Mark
Yep. Feel free to go ahead and do it (it's just an svn copy ...).
Daryl
How
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?
Crap. That stuff needs to be disabled, or changed to 3.4.0 real fast.
OK, I've
On 24/01/2010 1:23 PM, Thomas Schulz wrote:
Jan 22 13:10:01 talonjr spamd[8959]: spamd: handled cleanup of child pid
[8972] due to SIGCHLD: INTERRUPTED, signal 2 (0002)
Are these just more informative? Since a quick look of 3.2.5 shows the same
info() line, I'm worried that this isn't
On 18/01/2010 1:05 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
How About:
As the per-seat costs for any available commercial spamfilter solution
exceed the margin for a retail Internet service account, SpamAssassin
is the only spamfilter solution usable by ISPs
Nothing like the truth, eh? ;-)
I'm sure
We've delayed when we're going to do the press release so I'm still open
to (and looking for) quotes for use in the press release.
Please send quotes my way... it's a good way to get free publicity for
your organization.
Daryl
On 17/01/2010 4:45 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Hi All,
I'm
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 still going to use the old key for updates for 3.2, if we do them,
right? Forcing a key change for 3.2 would be bad, IMO.
1 - 100 of 435 matches
Mail list logo
