FYI I'd like to point out that this quoted reply is very insulting in
tone. Golly gee wonder, Bob, there might be information on web page?
No kidding.
Now, why do you think I didn't understand the reference? Because he
didn't explain it. He send me the opening page to a very large topic
with no information. Had he sent a direct link to the file locations,
or a comment than I can find the file locations here with the link, then
I would have known what information he was providing.
Next time you ask a question, if someone answers you with "That's how it
works" and a link to the index of an encyclopedia, would you go read the
entire encyclopedia to try and figure out what the person meant?
Neither would I.
So come down off your high horse and stop treating people badly when
they point out that the answer given didn't answer the question asked,
which is absolutely true. Because this isn't mysticism, we aren't going
to sit and meditate on what the person meant.
And worse yet that the rule provided doesn't work, which means that
you're being nasty to someone who is trying to improve the system.
Great job.
Bob Proulx wrote:
Many people believe that because email is ephemeral (aka the net has
no memory) that it is much better to place answers in documentation
pages such as on the web rather than to place answers in email.
Otherwise the same answers will need to be posted again and again and
any incorrect answers will remain in the archives forever possibly
misleading those that look them up later. Also most people consider
having documentation available to be superior to having an email
archive of questions and answers.
A common trend these days is to document an answer on a web page and
simply refer to the web page when answering questions. This way
incorrect answers can be corrected on the web page when in the future
other people look up the same information. The answer you were given
was following that best practice.
On the documentation page you were pointed to you must have missed
this section which answers your question.
Installed Updates
When updates are downloaded, they are put into a directory under the
local state dir (default /var/lib/spamassassin/<spamassassin version>)
similar to:
/var/lib/spamassassin
`-- 3.001004
|-- updates_spamassassin_org
`-- updates_spamassassin_org.cf
The files from the update go into updates_spamassassin_org, and the
*.cf files are then included by updates_spamassassin_org.cf, which
also keeps track of what update version is installed. Therefore, if it
is desired to change the update directory, the .cf and the update
directory will exist there.
There is the answer to your question. The files are stored in
/var/lib/spamassassin under a versioned directory under the
subdirectory there.
SM wrote:
TVD_PDF_FINGER01 Mail matches standard pdf spam fingerprint
That is the key piece of information. Using 'grep' to find which file
contains that rule is now trivial. On my Debian Stable Etch system
running the backports spamassassin with sa-update (justifying the
older version number) shows:
grep -l -r TVD_PDF_FINGER01 /var/lib/spamassassin
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.001007/updates_spamassassin_org/80_additional.cf
FYI I have seen several other threads with people complaining that
sa-update is not providing the PDF updates, so this is apparently a
common problem.
The sa-update rules catch most of the pdf spam here but I do see a few
pdf spams slip through the rules because they are not perfect. Rarely
are spam rules 100% perfect and seeing some corner cases slip through
is not unusual. It is a process of continual improvement.
Bob
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance ... net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
