Ivo Truxa wrote
>
> RW-15 wrote
>> Ivo Truxa wrote:
>>> meta AWL_FIX (URIBL_DBL_SPA || SOMETHING_ELSE || ANOTHER_ONE) && AWL
>>> < -3
>>
>> The value of AWL in the above is either 0 or 1, so the test is
>> unconditionally false. AFAIK there's no way to write a meta rule that
>> tests a rule'
RW-15 wrote
> Ivo Truxa wrote:
>> meta AWL_FIX (URIBL_DBL_SPA || SOMETHING_ELSE || ANOTHER_ONE) && AWL <
>> -3
>
> The value of AWL in the above is either 0 or 1, so the test is
> unconditionally false. AFAIK there's no way to write a meta rule that
> tests a rule's score.
No, the value of A
I see that you know exactly what you want, but still feel obliged to post a
reply anyway, because this thread is publicly accessible in archives, hence
people who search a solution for a similar problem may replicate your patch
without realizing the consequences. So you can ignore my comments below
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Ivo Truxa wrote:
> You could also write a rule based on the concerned tag
> values, in combination with the AWL value, so that it does the same
> trick without the need to hack the code. Something in a way similar
> to this one:
>
> meta AWL_FIX (URIBL_
On Sunday 30 March 2014 13:52:43 Ivo Truxa wrote:
> Nuno Fernandes-2 wrote
>
> > Yes.. you are correct. The result is not added to the AWL database but i'm
> > ok with that.
>
> Personally I think it makes no sense using AWL when you do not let it work,
Oh.. but it works. Only in some scenarios
