Mailing List Archive

the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change
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/
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
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'.
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
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
KMcGrail@Apache.org

Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
>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, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; 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!".
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
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
KMcGrail@Apache.org

Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
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.
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
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
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
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/
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
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
KMcGrail@Apache.org

Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
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.
Re: the pending whitelist* -> welcomelist* change [ In reply to ]
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.

{+_+}