On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 7/19/2020 7:39 PM, John Hardin wrote:
The non-can_welcome_block branch should not be renaming the rule.
Doing that breaks existing production installs.
I agree is causing unexpected local rules and local rule scoring issues
trying to get pre-3.4.3 releases to work.
What do you think of this change along with removing the score from
50_scores.cf? I think it will work back to 3.3.x:
if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::feature_blocklist_welcomelist)
#bz7826 renames whitelist to welcomelist
header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_welcomelist()
describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -6.0
else
header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_whitelist()
describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -0.01
meta USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO (USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO)
describe USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
tflags USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO -6.0
endif
That seems a better approach to me. +1
I was mulling the utility of a new config directive in 4.0 to address
backwards compatibility of rule names:
alias RULENAME RULENAME_2
...which would recognize any config-file directives for RULENAME and apply
them as if they'd been written for RULENAME_2.
This would discard any existing definition of RULENAME_2 (e.g. header
RULENAME_2 ...), and a definition of RULENAME_2 subsequent to that alias
would be ignored and a lint warning emitted.
That would allow the 4.0 release to be backwards-compatible thusly:
if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::feature_blocklist_welcomelist)
#bz7826 renames whitelist to welcomelist
header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_welcomelist()
describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -6.0
alias USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
else
header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO eval:check_to_in_whitelist()
describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO User is listed in 'welcomelist_to'
tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO -0.01
meta USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO (USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO)
describe USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO
tflags USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO userconf nice noautolearn
score USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO -6.0
endif
There is the use case of post-SA message processing looking for specific
rule name hits - I can see custom post-SA message processing looking for a
hit on "USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO" et al. To avoid breaking that we could add a
"report" option to the alias command:
alias RULENAME RULENAME_2 report
...which would include RULENAME in the rules hit list if RULENAME_2 hits.
However, that would expose RULENAME to user visibility and if the goal
here is to shield sensitive users from seeing "WHITELIST" or "BLACKLIST"
then we have conflicting goals. The report option probably shouldn't be in
the base rules as a default, unless we get information that such a utility
is in wide use.
The alias would be removed from the rule definition when the backwards
compatibility period expires in 4.1+, and we could document in 4.0 UPGRADE
that *IF* a given local post-SA processing utility is looking for these
rule names in the rules hit list then either that utility needs to be
modified to look for the new rule names or the following needs to be put
into the local SA config:
alias USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO USER_IN_WELCOMELIST_TO report
...(etc.) to set the "report" option on the alias to feed the external
utility until it gets modified to recognize the new rule names.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[email protected] FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [email protected]
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the hell is an "Aluminum Falcon"?? -- Emperor Palpatine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow: the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
