On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Stefan Jakobs wrote:

> But now I get a lint warning:
> # spamassassin --lint
> [12533] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule JM_SOUGHT_3
>
> The problem is that the sought ruleset has sometimes three rules and sometimes
> only two rules. But I don't like to change my config file each time the
> number of rules change.

My first response is, it's only a warning - why worry about it?

If there was _never_ going to be a JM_SOUGHT_3 then yeah, you'd want to
drop that score override, but if it's occasional, and it doesn't keep SA
from running, and you know why it's happening, why worry?

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is when people look at Yahoo, slashdot, or groklaw and
jump from obvious and correct observations like "Oh my God, this
place is teeming with utter morons" to incorrect conclusions like
"there's nothing of value here". -- Al Petrofsky, in Y! SCOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 days until the 232nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

On Mon, June 23, 2008 14:33, Stefan Jakobs wrote:

> /etc/mail/spamassassin/sought_rules.cf with this content:
> score JM_SOUGHT_1 2.2

meta JM_SOUGHT_!_ADJ (JM_SOUGHT_1)
score JM_SOUGHT_!_ADJ -0.1

> score JM_SOUGHT_2 2.2

meta JM_SOUGHT_2_ADJ (JM_SOUGHT_2)
score JM_SOUGHT_2_ADJ -0.1

> score JM_SOUGHT_3 2.2

meta JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ (JM_SOUGHT_3)
score JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ -0.1

> [12533] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule JM_SOUGHT_3

its just a warn, not a error :-)


Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

On Monday 23 June 2008 18:13, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Mon, June 23, 2008 14:33, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
> > /etc/mail/spamassassin/sought_rules.cf with this content:
> > score JM_SOUGHT_1 2.2
>
> meta JM_SOUGHT_1_ADJ (JM_SOUGHT_1)
> score JM_SOUGHT_1_ADJ -0.1
>
> > score JM_SOUGHT_2 2.2
>
> meta JM_SOUGHT_2_ADJ (JM_SOUGHT_2)
> score JM_SOUGHT_2_ADJ -0.1
>
> > score JM_SOUGHT_3 2.2
>
> meta JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ (JM_SOUGHT_3)
> score JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ -0.1

I'm guess this doesn't work:

amavis[31206]: (31206-01) SPAM-TAG, -> bar@bar.foo>, Yes,
score=7.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8,
BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, JM_SOUGHT_3=4, JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ=2.2,
SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666]

> > [12533] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule
> > JM_SOUGHT_3
>
> its just a warn, not a error :-)

Yes, that's right. :-S

Thanks for your advices.
Stefan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBIYC1MBiHtkFOLX+gRApl1AJ9oaYSZnKb6fES/7878GtQ72XQfTgCdGhRm
N1a9T1ajFtHfVGlMv1UCZm0=
=/Y+2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Stefan Jakobs wrote:

> On Monday 23 June 2008 18:13, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Mon, June 23, 2008 14:33, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
>>> /etc/mail/spamassassin/sought_rules.cf with this content:
>>> score JM_SOUGHT_1 2.2
>>
>> meta JM_SOUGHT_1_ADJ (JM_SOUGHT_1)
>> score JM_SOUGHT_1_ADJ -0.1
>>
>>> score JM_SOUGHT_2 2.2
>>
>> meta JM_SOUGHT_2_ADJ (JM_SOUGHT_2)
>> score JM_SOUGHT_2_ADJ -0.1
>>
>>> score JM_SOUGHT_3 2.2
>>
>> meta JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ (JM_SOUGHT_3)
>> score JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ -0.1
>
> I'm guess this doesn't work:
>
> amavis[31206]: (31206-01) SPAM-TAG, -> bar@bar.foo>, Yes,
> score=7.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8,
> BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, JM_SOUGHT_3=4, JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ=2.2,
> SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666]

Benny's _ADJ scores are an adjustment to the basic SOUGHT score, so you
should set JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ to -1.8 if you want to get a net score of 2.2
for SOUGHT ruleset #3.

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual liberties are always "loopholes" to absolute authority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 days until the 232nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

On Tue, June 24, 2008 01:10, Stefan Jakobs wrote:

> I'm guess this doesn't work:

> amavis[31206]: (31206-01) SPAM-TAG, -> bar@bar.foo>, Yes,
> score=7.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8,
> BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, JM_SOUGHT_3=4, JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ=2.2,
> SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666]

now you added plus and wanted less score ?

2.2 vs -2.2

ALL_TRUSTED is a warning




Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098

On Tuesday 24 June 2008 02:33, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Tue, June 24, 2008 01:10, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
> > I'm guess this doesn't work:
> >
> > amavis[31206]: (31206-01) SPAM-TAG, -> bar@bar.foo>, Yes,
> > score=7.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8,
> > BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, JM_SOUGHT_3=4, JM_SOUGHT_3_ADJ=2.2,
> > SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666]
>
> now you added plus and wanted less score ?
>
> 2.2 vs -2.2

Ah yes. Now I get it. Thanks Benny, thanks John.

> ALL_TRUSTED is a warning

Yes, I know. I'm working on it.

Greetings
Stefan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBIYKg3BiHtkFOLX+gRAkNTAJ9mmpqTsmQhgZuKvBFFEQ 6as/WLkwCgjkfE
64UZKEdM7Nk7ZyN0Z48PTsg=
=0jES
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
>
>> But now I get a lint warning:
>> # spamassassin --lint
>> [12533] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule
>> JM_SOUGHT_3
>

Would be worth considering extending the conditional section of the
parser to cope with this?

if defined JM_SOUGHT_3
score JM_SOUGHT_3 1.5
endif

matt

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 09:44:40PM +0100, Matt Hampton wrote:
> if defined JM_SOUGHT_3
> score JM_SOUGHT_3 1.5
> endif

Has anyone thought to ask JM to make sure that 3 rules are always generated,
even if the third one is empty ala:

meta JM_SOUGHT_3 0

thereby skipping all of the kluging suggestions to work around it?

--
Randomly Selected Tagline:
"Windows and MacOS are products, contrived by engineers in the service of
specific companies. Unix, by contrast, is not so much a product as it is a
painstakingly compiled oral history of the hacker subculture." - N. Stephenson

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIYV6XRnAwoQckjjoRAjh1AKDaEkR/rjSSUCy2fzDnRXeF+m8ZFACeP1IJ
vci2M6CcrSVXhrF5ewD0Vog=
=pcEa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Theo Van Dinter wrote:

> Has anyone thought to ask JM to make sure that 3 rules are always generated,
> even if the third one is empty ala:
>
> meta JM_SOUGHT_3 0
>
> thereby skipping all of the kluging suggestions to work around it?

No. Kludging is fun.

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
People seem to have this obsession with objects and tools as being
dangerous in and of themselves, as though a weapon will act of its
own accord to cause harm. A weapon is just a force multiplier. It's
*humans* that are (or are not) dangerous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 days until the 232nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 09:44:40PM +0100, Matt Hampton wrote:
> > if defined JM_SOUGHT_3
> > score JM_SOUGHT_3 1.5
> > endif
>
> Has anyone thought to ask JM to make sure that 3 rules are always generated,
> even if the third one is empty ala:
>
> meta JM_SOUGHT_3 0
>
> thereby skipping all of the kluging suggestions to work around it?

already done