> On 10/18/2017 10:10 AM, Merijn van den Kroonenberg wrote: >>> A new file has been created, 72_scores_temporary_fix.cf (107 lines), >>> that is the delta of the last known good 72_scores.cf from March and >>> the >>> latest incomplete 72_scores.cf (56 lines): >> >> So the combination of 72_scores_temporary_fix.cf and the latest >> 72_scores.cf result in the same rules + scores as the 72_scores.cf from >> march? >> > > Correct. > >> Or are some scores different? > > The ~56 scores in 72_scores.cf will change slightly each night based on > masscheck processing. The "last known good" scores from March for the > ~107 that are missing from 72_scores.cf have been put in the > 72_scores_temporary_fix.cf to prevent low overall scoring like what > happened in mid June. > >> >> What is the intention of this temporary fix of the rule updates? Will it >> allow score changes by the score generation system? If so, what will >> prevent unexpected/unintended scores to be generated because the score >> generation is broken? And if not, what is gained by activating the rule >> updates again, will manual rule updates be pushed? >> > > Yes. The scores that are making it to the 72_scores.cf appear to be > correct. The issue is causing 2/3rds of the scores to be completely > missing taking the default score of 1.0 to throw off scoring > significantly.
Right, but what I remembered from looking at this earlier, the generated 72_scores.cf (like the ones generated in june) seem to 'leave out' different rules each time. Most of those ~56 are the same rules, but they are not exactly. So each day some other rules are 'missing' and get the default 1.0 score? I compared the new 72_scores.cf against a few from june and what i remembered seems to be correct, different rules disappear each day. How are you countering this behaviour with a fixed 72_scores_temporary_fix.cf file? Or are you re-generating the 72_scores_temporary_fix.cf anew each day by comparing to the march 72 score file? John Hardin said in an earlier mail: "The problem is 72_scores has explicit bad scores in it.". Is this true? If so you override some rules which do get generated in the ~56 set? > > We need to sa-updates going again. None of the updates of the past few > months here have gone out to the Internet: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rules/?sortby=date > > There are some other new rule updates that could be coming soon (i.e. > new LASHBACK RBL testing with very low scores) which add to the > importance to get updates enabled again while I continue to troubleshoot > the incomplete 72_scores.cf issue. > > -- > David Jones > >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/scores/72_scores_temporary_fix.cf >>> >>> The latest ruleset 1812374.tar.gz with the 72_scores_temporary_fix.cf >>> was installed on my production mail filters and my spamtrap for >>> masschecking and the scoring is normal the past couple of hours. Last >>> time there was a sharp drop in scoring that should have been quickly >>> obvious. >>> >>> I need some volunteers to manually install the latest ruleset from any >>> SA update mirror and check their scoring so we can enable automated >>> updates via DNS soon: >>> >>> cd /tmp >>> wget http://sa-update.ena.com/1812374.tar.gz >>> wget http://sa-update.ena.com/1812374.tar.gz.sha1 >>> wget http://sa-update.ena.com/1812374.tar.gz.asc >>> sa-update -v --install 1812374.tar.gz >>> (restart your spamd, amavisd, mimedefang, MailScanner, etc.) >>> >>> Please run the commands above and provide some feedback so we can >>> enable >>> automatic sa-updates again soon. >>> >>> -- >>> David Jones >>> > > -- > David Jones >
