Bug 49 - Use of user-defined rules is inconsistent
Summary: Use of user-defined rules is inconsistent
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: spamassassin (show other bugs)
Version: 2.30CVS
Hardware: All All
: P2 enhancement
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Craig Hughes
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-02-22 09:06 UTC by Greg Ward
Modified: 2002-06-15 03:58 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Implements allow_user_rules patch None Duncan Findlay [HasCLA]
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Greg Ward 2002-02-22 09:06:07 UTC 
Using spamassassin, user-defined rules (ie. rules in 
~/.spamassassin/user_prefs) are obeyed.

Using spamc/spamd, they are not obeyed.

This inconsistency is annoying.  The two interfaces should be as equivalent 
as possible.  For admin flexibility, there should be an 'allow_user_rules' 
config parameter (only recognized for the system config, of course) that 
would control both spamassassin and spamc/spamd.  For security, this should 
default to false.  

It would be nice if user-defined rules in a non-allow_user_rules environment 
triggered a warning, but I'm not sure of the right way to get that warning 
to the user.  Printing to stderr won't cut it.  Add a new header perhaps?
Comment 1 Craig Hughes 2002-02-22 10:26:51 UTC 
I'll leave it inconsistent -- such that spamassassin ignores the
'allow_user_rules' parameter, while spamd does not.  Also 'allow_user_rules'
will be off by default.

Not sure what the best way is to get a message to the user -- we could "cheat"
and assume the user's going to be using outlook or OE, and use the
X-Message-Flag field, which will then show up nicely in their MUA.  Non-outlook
people would just see it as a regular header.
Comment 2 Craig Hughes 2002-04-05 10:39:22 UTC 
Reassigning to list -- originally accepted before bugzilla policy 
change/clarification
Comment 3 Duncan Findlay 2002-04-14 12:30:49 UTC 
Created attachment 69 [details]
Implements allow_user_rules
Comment 4 Duncan Findlay 2002-04-14 12:33:30 UTC 
Woohoo! attachment 69 [details].

Anyways... This implements the config option allow_user_rules, and includes a
nice warning about why it isn't safe.

Because of the way conf files are set up now, it would be tough to have extra
rules give a warning to the user... but I could try...
Comment 5 Craig Hughes 2002-04-14 13:07:23 UTC 
Thanks Duncan.  I guess I might as well stick this in 2.20 before release!