Re: [SAtalk] [RD] Meta rules vs. SA version

2003-11-03 Thread Matt Kettler
At 01:50 PM 11/3/2003, Chris Santerre wrote: I'm not sure if it is just me, but there are some new rules I have in the update that look like this: (__meta1 + __meta2) > 1 They don't work on older version of SA. they get an error when doing a spamassassin -D --lint. The '+' is throwing it off. I wo

Re: [SAtalk] [RD] Meta rules vs. SA version

2003-11-03 Thread Martin Radford
At Mon Nov 3 18:50:49 2003, Chris Santerre wrote: > > I'm not sure if it is just me, but there are some new rules I have in the > update that look like this: > > (__meta1 + __meta2) > 1 > > They don't work on older version of SA. they get an error when doing a > spamassassin -D --lint. The '+'

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] Meta rules vs. SA version

2003-11-03 Thread Scott Sprunger
To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: [SAtalk] [RD] Meta rules vs. SA version I'm not sure if it is just me, but there are some new rules I have in the update that look like this: (__meta1 + __meta2) > 1 They don't work on older version of SA. they get an error when doing a spamassassi

[SAtalk] [RD] Meta rules vs. SA version

2003-11-03 Thread Chris Santerre
I'm not sure if it is just me, but there are some new rules I have in the update that look like this: (__meta1 + __meta2) > 1 They don't work on older version of SA. they get an error when doing a spamassassin -D --lint. The '+' is throwing it off. I wonder if that feature is 2.60 dependant?