the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

Victor Sudakov-2
Dear Colleagues,

My SpamAssassin reports that

-0.0 USER_IN_WELCOMELIST    user is listed in 'welcomelist_from'                                                                        
-100 USER_IN_WHITELIST      DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST          

However when I change "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from", SpamAssassin complains:

$ spamassassin --lint
Oct 16 02:46:11.739 [11288] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in "/etc/spamassassin/local.cf": welcomelist_from *@
Oct 16 02:46:12.979 [11288] warn: lint: 1 issues detected, please rerun with debug enabled for more information

Am I not supposed to replace whitelist with welcomelist in my configs?


--
Victor Sudakov,  VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

RW-15
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:48:20 +0700
Victor Sudakov wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> My SpamAssassin reports that
>
> -0.0 USER_IN_WELCOMELIST    user is listed in 'welcomelist_from'
> -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST      DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST
>    
>
> However when I change "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from",
> SpamAssassin complains:

It looks like it's not been ported to 3.*, but we have:


if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::feature_blocklist_welcomelist)

...

else
  header USER_IN_WELCOMELIST            eval:check_from_in_whitelist()
  describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST          user is listed in 'welcomelist_from'
  tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST            userconf nice noautolearn
  score USER_IN_WELCOMELIST             -0.01

  meta USER_IN_WHITELIST                (USER_IN_WELCOMELIST)
  describe USER_IN_WHITELIST            DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST
  tflags USER_IN_WHITELIST              userconf nice noautolearn
  score USER_IN_WHITELIST               -100.0
endif

So a feature is deprecated before the alternative is implemented. A
year ago I would have followed that by 'unbelievable'.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

Kevin A. McGrail-5
In reply to this post by Victor Sudakov-2
On 10/16/2020 5:48 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> My SpamAssassin reports that
>
> -0.0 USER_IN_WELCOMELIST    user is listed in 'welcomelist_from'                                                                        
> -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST      DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST          
>
> However when I change "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from", SpamAssassin complains:
>
> $ spamassassin --lint
> Oct 16 02:46:11.739 [11288] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in "/etc/spamassassin/local.cf": welcomelist_from *@
> Oct 16 02:46:12.979 [11288] warn: lint: 1 issues detected, please rerun with debug enabled for more information
>
> Am I not supposed to replace whitelist with welcomelist in my configs?
No, not until 4.0 is released.  Good question!

--
Kevin A. McGrail
[hidden email]

Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>On 10/16/2020 5:48 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote:
>> My SpamAssassin reports that
>>
>> -0.0 USER_IN_WELCOMELIST    user is listed in 'welcomelist_from'
>> -100 USER_IN_WHITELIST      DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST
>>
>> However when I change "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from", SpamAssassin complains:
>>
>> $ spamassassin --lint
>> Oct 16 02:46:11.739 [11288] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in "/etc/spamassassin/local.cf": welcomelist_from *@
>> Oct 16 02:46:12.979 [11288] warn: lint: 1 issues detected, please rerun with debug enabled for more information
>>
>> Am I not supposed to replace whitelist with welcomelist in my configs?

On 16.10.20 09:20, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>No, not until 4.0 is released.  Good question!

perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
and versions <4 should have the original rules.

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [hidden email] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Christian Science Programming: "Let God Debug It!".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

Kevin A. McGrail-5
On 10/16/2020 10:22 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 16.10.20 09:20, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
No, not until 4.0 is released.  Good question!

perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
and versions <4 should have the original rules.

The rule just happens to have the same name as the configuration options

The old rule IS deprecated.  The new configuration option with backwards compatibility is a 4.0 option.

Regards,

KAM

-- 
Kevin A. McGrail
[hidden email]

Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

Noel Butler
In reply to this post by Matus UHLAR - fantomas

On 17/10/2020 00:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

On 10/16/2020 5:48 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote:
My SpamAssassin reports that

-0.0 USER_IN_WELCOMELIST    user is listed in 'welcomelist_from'
-100 USER_IN_WHITELIST      DEPRECATED: See USER_IN_WELCOMELIST

However when I change "whitelist_from" to "welcomelist_from", SpamAssassin complains:

$ spamassassin --lint
Oct 16 02:46:11.739 [11288] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in "/etc/spamassassin/local.cf": welcomelist_from *@
Oct 16 02:46:12.979 [11288] warn: lint: 1 issues detected, please rerun with debug enabled for more information

Am I not supposed to replace whitelist with welcomelist in my configs?

On 16.10.20 09:20, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
No, not until 4.0 is released.  Good question!

perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
and versions <4 should have the original rules.

I agree, but since Kevin is the one forcing this political crap down our throats, he wont care and will deny all requests, just run a perl regex over the rules to remove/replace them ;)

--

Regards,
Noel Butler

This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged information, therefore at all times remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate this message without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

Bill Cole
On 16 Oct 2020, at 21:06, Noel Butler wrote:

> perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
> and versions <4 should have the original rules.

The rule name change is an artifact of how the rules are
version-controlled. We have exactly one version of the rules and it
resides in the trunk of the Subversion repository. This imposes a
discipline: we MUST keep the rules working with the latest release, with
past releases to the degree possible, and with the next release. This
also means that rules which use new features get exposed to everyone
before the features. A terminology change across the codebase isn't done
instantaneously so unless you're running from a 'trunk' checkout, you
won't see the changes outside of the rules until they are all done, but
while adapting the rules we got a few imperfect interim stages before
the current implementation, which just works.

What does NOT work is to conflate the change in rule names with a change
in configuration directive names. They are different things.

--
Bill Cole
[hidden email] or [hidden email]
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

Victor Sudakov-2
Bill Cole wrote:

>
> > perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
> > and versions <4 should have the original rules.
>
> The rule name change is an artifact of how the rules are version-controlled.
> We have exactly one version of the rules and it resides in the trunk of the
> Subversion repository. This imposes a discipline: we MUST keep the rules
> working with the latest release, with past releases to the degree possible,
> and with the next release. This also means that rules which use new features
> get exposed to everyone before the features. A terminology change across the
> codebase isn't done instantaneously so unless you're running from a 'trunk'
> checkout, you won't see the changes outside of the rules until they are all
> done, but while adapting the rules we got a few imperfect interim stages
> before the current implementation, which just works.
>
> What does NOT work is to conflate the change in rule names with a change in
> configuration directive names. They are different things.
Thanks a lot to all who replied. So, for the uninitiated like me, I just
keep the old white* and black* in my local.cf, and put up with the
deprecation warning in the Spam Report. Is this correct?


--
Victor Sudakov,  VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/

signature.asc (465 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

Kevin A. McGrail-5
That sums it up well for now, yes.  4.0 will even let you still use the
same config options so there is a timeline for planning for the removal
of the options with 4.1 whenever that is.

On 10/17/2020 11:10 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Thanks a lot to all who replied. So, for the uninitiated like me, I just
> keep the old white* and black* in my local.cf, and put up with the
> deprecation warning in the Spam Report. Is this correct?

--
Kevin A. McGrail
[hidden email]

Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171



signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

RW-15
In reply to this post by Bill Cole
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 23:18:16 -0400
Bill Cole wrote:

> On 16 Oct 2020, at 21:06, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> > perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
> > and versions <4 should have the original rules.  
>
> The rule name change is an artifact of how the rules are
> version-controlled. We have exactly one version of the rules and it
> resides in the trunk of the Subversion repository.

And that one version of rules has separate definitions for SA versions
that support "feature_blocklist_welcomelist" and those that don't.

There's no excuse for providing confusing information.


> What does NOT work is to conflate the change in rule names with a
> change in configuration directive names. They are different things.

That's not at all clear from the "describe" text displayed for 3.*. The
OP assumed it was time to switch configuration and that's perfectly
reasonable IMO.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change

jdow
On 20201017 10:58:13, RW wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 23:18:16 -0400
Bill Cole wrote:

On 16 Oct 2020, at 21:06, Noel Butler wrote:

perhaps, the rules above should be defined only for version >=4
and versions <4 should have the original rules.  
The rule name change is an artifact of how the rules are 
version-controlled. We have exactly one version of the rules and it 
resides in the trunk of the Subversion repository.
And that one version of rules has separate definitions for SA versions
that support "feature_blocklist_welcomelist" and those that don't. 

There's no excuse for providing confusing information.


What does NOT work is to conflate the change in rule names with a
change in configuration directive names. They are different things.
That's not at all clear from the "describe" text displayed for 3.*. The
OP assumed it was time to switch configuration and that's perfectly
reasonable IMO. 

It would be wonderful if I could simply do something like "define whitelist_from as welcomelist_from" and admit I am a racist as far as idiots whose opinions about me are beneath contempt are concerned. This whole thing is falling apart about the way I thought it would with this kind of fundamental political correctness minded change.

{+_+}