What about using the SA 'test rule' mechanism?
(IE use "T_testA1" rather than "__testA1").
Effectivly the micro weighting done automagically and in a
standardized way.
Nice, micro weighting without the required score lines. Now I just
need to ignore or absorb the extra scores.
Dan
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Dan wrote:
> > It looks like it might have some interesting purposes. But for the
> > most part, I can't think of what you would use it for. I can't
> > think of a single example where SARE could have used this before.
>
> Actually, the way I expect to use it is more like:
>
>
It looks like it might have some interesting purposes. But for the most part, I can't think of what you would use it for. I can't think of a single example where SARE could have used this before.Actually, the way I expect to use it is more like: __test [A1 - A3] __test [B1 - B3] __test [C1 - C3] __
Chris Santerre wrote:
> What the fork happens to perl?? :)
>
> Seriously, how does the code handle all this memory wise?
You mean with respect to the specific organization of the rules by cascading
metas?
Meta rules should be rather cheap with respect to both memory and processor use.
I'd
What
the fork happens to perl?? :)
Seriously, how
does the code handle all this memory wise? I have to say, I've never even
thought of doing this. It looks like it might have some interesting purposes.
But for the most part, I can't think of what you would use it for. I can't think
of
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:37:40AM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> do such detailed analysis on live email... If you really must do it
> live, the 0.001 score seems to be your best option.
If you really really wanted it in the headers, you could open a BZ ticket
requesting an enhancement to create a
Dan wrote:
>> Is 0.001 a low enough score to be considered to be zero?
>
> I'm building a very precise configuration so any variations create
> headaches, but if I can't find any alternatives, I may have to.
>
>
>> You can run the message through spamassassin -tD. The debug output will
>> include t
Is 0.001 a low enough score to be considered to be zero?
I'm building a very precise configuration so any variations create
headaches, but if I can't find any alternatives, I may have to.
You can run the message through spamassassin -tD. The debug output
will
include the full list of tes
Dan Patnode wrote:
> I've confirmed that meta's within meta's within meta's work well:
>
> body __testA /\ba/i
> but, combined with neutralized (__) tests, the score line doesn't show
> which individual tests were triggered:
>
> X-SpamAssassin: score=3.0 tests=META_ABCDEF,META_ABCDEFGHIJKL,META_GH
From: "Dan Patnode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I've confirmed that meta's within meta's within meta's work well:
body __testA /\ba/i
body __testB /\bb/i
body __testC /\bc/i
body __testD /\bd/i
body __testE /\be/i
body __testF /\bf/i
body __testG /\bg/i
body __testH /\bh/i
body __testI /\bi/i
body __te
10 matches
Mail list logo
