On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:29, Mark Martinec <[email protected]> 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 rules is Bug 6295, which should be
> fixed with the next sa-update. Whether this is rolled into
> an updated rules tarball or not is fine with me either way.
>
> Another thing I noticed, comparing the resulting rules
> from network sa-update to rules installed from a tarball
> is the inclusion of two 'nopublish' rules in the tarball.
> As these are both meta rules, this should not be a blocker.
> Why does a network update bring-in a dummy local.cf
> and a regression_tests.cf file? Not a big deal either.
>
>
> diff -r -U1 3.003000.net/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
> 3.003000.tar/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
> --- 3.003000.net/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf 2010-01-19
> 13:04:46.000000000 +0100
> +++ 3.003000.tar/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf 2010-01-20
> 12:06:41.000000000 +0100
> @@ -554,7 +554,2 @@
>
> -##{ FB_YOU_CAN_BECOME
> -body FB_YOU_CAN_BECOME /you can become/i
> -describe FB_YOU_CAN_BECOME Phrase: you can become
> -##} FB_YOU_CAN_BECOME
> -
I think that's a normal effect of rules moving into/out of active.list
as ruleqa results fluctuate.
> ##{ FH_BAD_OEV1441
> @@ -3219,2 +3214,6 @@
> header __RATWARE_BOUND_B ALL =~
> /boundary="----=_NextPart_000_...._([0-9a-f]{8})\..{10,400}^Message-Id:
> <....\1\$[0-9a-f]{8}\$/msi # "
> +header __RCVD_IN_ANBREP eval:check_rbl('anubisrep-lastexternal',
> 'c.anubisnetworks.com.')
> +tflags __RCVD_IN_ANBREP net nopublish
> +header __RCVD_IN_ANBREP_F eval:check_rbl('anubisrep-firsttrusted',
> 'c.anubisnetworks.com.')
> +tflags __RCVD_IN_ANBREP_F net nopublish
This is in the tarball? wtf. That definitely is not appropriate.
can you open a bug?
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.
> Only in 3.003000.net/updates_spamassassin_org: MIRRORED.BY
> Only in 3.003000.net/updates_spamassassin_org: local.cf
> Only in 3.003000.net/updates_spamassassin_org: regression_tests.cf
> diff -r -U1 3.003000.net/updates_spamassassin_org.cf
> 3.003000.tar/updates_spamassassin_org.cf
> --- 3.003000.net/updates_spamassassin_org.cf 2010-01-19 13:04:47.000000000
> +0100
> +++ 3.003000.tar/updates_spamassassin_org.cf 2010-01-20 12:06:41.000000000
> +0100
> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
> -# UPDATE version 900701
> +# UPDATE version 900610
> include updates_spamassassin_org/10_default_prefs.cf
> @@ -49,3 +49 @@
> include updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
> -include updates_spamassassin_org/local.cf
> -include updates_spamassassin_org/regression_tests.cf
I think this is harmless, albeit a little ugly.
--
--j.
