Another non-standard search/sort field :)

[ellie timoney]

Hi Vladislav,

Thanks for the patch.  I'll try to get it merged this week.

ellie

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015, at 23:19, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> > 11.09.2015 14:49, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015, at 20:00, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> > >> 11.09.2015 12:01, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015, at 16:48, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> > >>>> 11.09.2015 03:52, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > >>>>> sort: spamscore search: spamabove / spambelow
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> These use the X-Spam-score header which is a floating point number
> > >>>>> with a single decimal place usually, i.e. 5.0, 17.3.  spamabove is GE
> > >>>>> and spambelow is LT.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm going to push this back, because it doesn't clash with anything.
> > >>>>> It's kinda nice to be able to sort by spamscore to quickly put the
> > >>>>> focus on the most likely to be be wrongly classified messages, and
> > >>>>> we're going to support that in our interface at some stage.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Bron.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ah, I have a nice patch for spamtest extension against 2.4.17.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It connects to spamd itself from lmtpd, checks the message and sets
> > >>>> additional headers. Sieve integration is done too.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Need to send it here.
> > >>>
> > >>> That would be great.
> > >>
> > >> Attached. Just found that it inconsistently uses tabs/spaces. I hope
> > >> that is not an issue at least for initial review.
> > >
> > > Initial impressions:
> > >
> > > I would rename 's' to 'fd'.  Everyone knows what 'fd' does, s could be anything,
> > > and being an int, it's totally un-typesafe.
> > 
> > It was initially written against newly-released 2.3.8. That time socket 
> > fd was usually named 's' or 'sock'. 's' is shorter ;) Did that change?
> 
> Fair enough :)  I haven't dealt with that area of the code quite so much,
> more the index and database filehandles.
> 
> > Yep, that never resulted in lost messages for last N+1 years in quite 
> > busy setups (not as fastmail, but anyways...).
> > 
> > So, yes, that "works for me" and such change would be really cosmetic.
> > 
> > I just ported it to 2.4.17 recently without even looking much at the 
> > code (but yes, that is tested on newer setups right from the patch date).
> > 
> > I can send previous revision (against 2.3.13) as well.
> 
> No, that's fine.  We can work with this.
> 
> > > I've got a sneaking feeling that your entire spamtest_parse_hosts could be
> > > turned into a tight little piece of code based on strarray_split() - but it looks fine.
> > 
> > No opinion. It was not available in 2.3.x. IMHO spamtest_parse_hosts is 
> > very straight-forward.
> > 
> > And, that _may_ conflict with the line in TODO list (which I probably 
> > will never do anyways because I have no idea how to make that fair 
> > enough without initial lookups):
> > * Make load-balancing work if hostname that resolve to multiple A 
> > records is used in "spamtest_spamd_hosts".
> 
> One interesting possibility (more for spam than virus checking) is to
> send requests
> for the same user to the same host always, which would require some form
> of
> consistent hashing.  We do that with nginx at FastMail for web requests:
> 
> upstream internalbackend {
>   server web1.nyi.internal:8080;
>   server web2.nyi.internal:8080;
>   server web3.nyi.internal:8080 down;
>   server web4.nyi.internal:8080;
>   server web5.nyi.internal:8080;
>   server web6.nyi.internal:8080;
> }
> 
> So it knows web3 is down and hashes elsewhere, but when it comes back up,
> the
> same users will move back.
> 
> We do the same for postfix lmtp delivery with some magic code in a thing
> called lmtpforwardd,
> which just listens on localhost and forwards to the correct server based
> on the list of up spam
> scan machines.
> 
> > > All the code looks like it works (which is not a surprise, because it's been used).
> > > My main concerns would be around signal safety in the file IO syscalls.
> > 
> > Feel free to convert them to prot ones, but I do not feel it is strictly 
> > required.
> 
> Sure thing :)
> 
> Bron.
> 
> -- 
>   Bron Gondwana
>   brong at fastmail.fm