Skip to main content

Spamassassin warning and missing rules?

Comments

4 comments

  • cPanelMichael
    Hello, I see the same debug output when running that command on a test system where SpamAssassin is working as intended. It's not an indication that your rules are not enabled. Are you experiencing a specific issue with SpamAssassin? Thank you.
    0
  • EneTar
    Not anything in particular other than those warnings. Spamassassin works on my system. However I believe that all those rules and the rules that depend on those are not evaluated since they are missing. I don't think that this particular debug output should be normal behavior. Perhaps you would like to have a look with your team.
    0
  • cPanelMichael
    Hello, This is noted in the output of the "/usr/local/cpanel/scripts/sa-update_wrapper" command:
  • Please note that 'IO::Socket::IP' and 'Net::Patricia' are not needed by our implementation of SpamAssassin.
  • The warnings related to them can be safely ignored.

  • Additionally, the output you noticed included a reference to Net::CIDR::Lite. You can also ignore that warning because Net::CIDR::Lite is only used with a SpamAssassin plugin that we don't enable. As far as the rules/scores warning, here's part of a response from one of our Technical Analysts on a similar inquiry opened as a support ticket: [QUOTE]I have checked this for you, and it appears that the warnings are not something that should prevent SpamAssassin from operating. In fact, they appear to be only informational. For example, the "URI_OBFU_WWW" rule was downloaded automatically by SpamAssassin as part of its update, and there are definitions for how something triggering "URI_OBFU_WWW" should be marked. However, there are no rules provided in the update to say what is required for this to occur. There are also notices that certain rules do not have a description. This is not necessary for the rules to function, and is only used for helping to explain what the rule does. These descriptions are up to the rule maintainers to provide.
    Thank you.
    0
  • EneTar
    Thanks Michael it makes sense then.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.