rspamd: Specify correct type for fuzzy worker #73689
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dminuoso
changed the title
|
You are correct that was my assumption. Silly me assumed at the time that the Rspamd documentation was correct. I have since learnt my lesson. I now have a todo list of improvements I could make to the documentation if I ever find the time. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The rspamd module has an incorrect type declaration The types require the fuzzy worker to be specified as
fuzzy_storagebut rspamd only acceptsfuzzyas the worker type.Perhaps the author just falsely assumed https://rspamd.com/doc/workers/ to be an authoritative list of worker types. That documentation of rspamd is wrong.
If
fuzzy_storageis specified rspamd will emit a warning that this worker type does not exist, andfuzzyis not amissable.Notify maintainers
cc @griff