Mailing List Archive: SpamAssassin: devel

Auto-promote behavior? Re: svn commit: r881199 - /spamassassin/trunk/rules/active.list

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

wtogami at redhat

Nov 21, 2009, 10:32 PM

Post #1 of 4 (463 views)
Permalink

Auto-promote behavior? Re: svn commit: r881199 - /spamassassin/trunk/rules/active.list

On 11/17/2009 03:50 AM, jm [at] apache wrote:
>
> # good enough
> -VANITY
> -

For a while this rule was auto-promoted and pushed to the 3.3.0
sa-update channel. But November 17th's promotions validation mail says
VANITY was removed from "good enough". I see no FP's in the nightly
masschecks of the previous week that could cause this. November 14th's
masscheck is the last day where it says VANITY instead of T_VANITY in
ruleqa.

This leaves me confused as to how auto-promote is supposed to behave?

Warren Togami
wtogami [at] redhat

wtogami at redhat

Nov 22, 2009, 12:29 AM

Post #2 of 4 (430 views)
Permalink

Re: Auto-promote behavior? Re: svn commit: r881199 - /spamassassin/trunk/rules/active.list [In reply to]

On 11/22/2009 01:32 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 11/17/2009 03:50 AM, jm [at] apache wrote:
>>
>> # good enough
>> -VANITY
>> -
>
> For a while this rule was auto-promoted and pushed to the 3.3.0
> sa-update channel. But November 17th's promotions validation mail says
> VANITY was removed from "good enough". I see no FP's in the nightly
> masschecks of the previous week that could cause this. November 14th's
> masscheck is the last day where it says VANITY instead of T_VANITY in
> ruleqa.
>
> This leaves me confused as to how auto-promote is supposed to behave?
>

Something appears to have gone haywire.

http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20091121-r882858-n/T_RCVD_IN_PSBL/detail

How did RCVD_IN_PSBL become deactivated?

Warren

wtogami at redhat

Nov 23, 2009, 9:12 PM

Post #3 of 4 (417 views)
Permalink

Re: Auto-promote behavior? Re: svn commit: r881199 - /spamassassin/trunk/rules/active.list [In reply to]

On 11/22/2009 03:29 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 11/22/2009 01:32 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
>> On 11/17/2009 03:50 AM, jm [at] apache wrote:
>>>
>>> # good enough
>>> -VANITY
>>> -
>>
>> For a while this rule was auto-promoted and pushed to the 3.3.0
>> sa-update channel. But November 17th's promotions validation mail says
>> VANITY was removed from "good enough". I see no FP's in the nightly
>> masschecks of the previous week that could cause this. November 14th's
>> masscheck is the last day where it says VANITY instead of T_VANITY in
>> ruleqa.
>>
>> This leaves me confused as to how auto-promote is supposed to behave?
>>
>
> Something appears to have gone haywire.
>
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20091121-r882858-n/T_RCVD_IN_PSBL/detail
>
> How did RCVD_IN_PSBL become deactivated?
>
> Warren

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/commits/144427
Yesterday's auto-promotions brought back many of the rules that were
demoted last week for seemingly no reason. But the VANITY rule remains
demoted. Any idea what is going on here?

Warren

spamassassin at dostech

Nov 24, 2009, 6:15 PM

Post #4 of 4 (399 views)
Permalink

Re: Auto-promote behavior? Re: svn commit: r881199 - /spamassassin/trunk/rules/active.list [In reply to]

On 24/11/2009 12:12 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/commits/144427
> Yesterday's auto-promotions brought back many of the rules that were
> demoted last week for seemingly no reason. But the VANITY rule remains
> demoted. Any idea what is going on here?

I've always felt that there was too much bounce happening in this
process. I don't think the script collects any info about the previous
state of the list (ie I think it's based on single numbers, not a high
number to get on the list and a lower number to be kicked off the list).

I would suspect that there's another criteria that isn't being met...
perhaps the S/O is fine but the percentage of mail hit isn't always high
enough.

Daryl

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads