That sounds like rule promotion might be broken. I also think most of the mass check and rule QA system is tied to version 3.4 and it should probably get re-jiggered for 4.0.
Can you open a bug KAM On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 22:02 Bill Cole < saruleqa-20221...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > On 2022-11-04 at 12:48:00 UTC-0400 (Fri, 4 Nov 2022 09:48:00 -0700) > Kevin A. McGrail <rul...@spamassassin.apache.org> > is rumored to have said: > > > Are your rules still in the sandbox? They're just not getting > > promoted? > > Everything is still in the sandbox. Some rules in the same file have > made it into the default rules. Some made it with a T_ name (e.g. > T_SCC_BOGUS_CTE_1 and T_SCC_CTMPP) some time back but the new names > haven't appeared in the ruleset or on the RuleQA. > > Interesting that SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 is in the sandbox file, appears as > both SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 and T_SCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 in RuleQA, but neither > form is in the distributed ruleset. > > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 09:21 Bill Cole <billc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> I recently added multiple rules to my sandbox (in 80test.cf) and > >> tweaked > >> them over the space of a few weeks, including renaming some to remove > >> the leading 'T_' > >> > >> And QA seems to not see all of them and is showing hits on both the > >> test > >> and non-test versions. Example: > >> > >> > https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20221103-r1905040-n&rule=%2FSCC_SPAMMER_ADDR_2 > >> > >> I'm *GUESSING* that some testers don't regularly update their rules > >> or > >> something like that. However, there are other rules > >> (__SCC_HASHBUST_{1..3,6}) that have seemingly just vanished. > >> > >> I've waited for ~3 weeks for this to all shake out, but it hasn't. > >> > > > -- > Bill Cole > b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org > (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) > Not Currently Available For Hire >
