On Monday 07 April 2014 08:00:38 Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Please move this patch to a bug for SA. Add more comments and some
> documentation for the feature and I don't see why we couldn't patch for
> you. However, also realize that I'm looking heavily at things like
> TxRep to replace AWL which
On 4/7/2014 5:08 AM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
Nevertheless i think the following one liner would do the trick (have to
test it though):
--- Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm.orig2014-03-24
11:31:18.0 +
+++ Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm 2014-03-24 11:31:20.0 +
@@
> Nevertheless i think the following one liner would do the trick (have to
> test it though):
>
> --- Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm.orig2014-03-24
> 11:31:18.0 +
> +++ Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm 2014-03-24 11:31:20.0 +
> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@
># or
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
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,
and do not store all scores. A better place to make the modification is at
the bottom of the sub check_fro
On Tuesday 25 March 2014 16:18:42 Ivo Truxa wrote:
> Looks OK, but the problem is that the new score won't be added to the AWL
> database. So for example if AWL tells the average score is 1.0, your RBL
> tells it ought to be 10.0, AWL would normally reflect it, the average score
> for the given ema
Looks OK, but the problem is that the new score won't be added to the AWL
database. So for example if AWL tells the average score is 1.0, your RBL
tells it ought to be 10.0, AWL would normally reflect it, the average score
for the given email/IP combination would increase, and the next time AWL
cou
On Monday 24 March 2014 12:18:05 Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 03/24/2014 12:14 PM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 March 2014 07:50:50 Matt Kettler wrote:
> >>> Does this do it?
> >>>
> >>> score AWL 0
> >>> meta LOCAL_SCORE_AWL AWL && !URIBL_DBL_SPAM
> >>> score LOCAL_SCORE_AWL-10
On 03/24/2014 12:14 PM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
> On Thursday 20 March 2014 07:50:50 Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>> Does this do it?
>>>
>>> score AWL 0
>>> meta LOCAL_SCORE_AWL AWL && !URIBL_DBL_SPAM
>>> score LOCAL_SCORE_AWL-10
>>>
>>> where -10 is whatever score AWL usually has (I forget)
>>
On Thursday 20 March 2014 07:50:50 Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Does this do it?
> >
> > score AWL 0
> > meta LOCAL_SCORE_AWL AWL && !URIBL_DBL_SPAM
> > score LOCAL_SCORE_AWL-10
> >
> > where -10 is whatever score AWL usually has (I forget)
>
> AWL has a variable score, so you can't negate
On 3/19/2014 1:44 PM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
--On March 19, 2014 9:58:29 -0400 "Kevin A. McGrail"
wrote:
On 3/19/2014 5:14 AM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to disable awl (or at least score it 0.001) when a
special rule hit like:
if URIBL_DBL_SPAM
score AWL 0
endif
--On March 19, 2014 9:58:29 -0400 "Kevin A. McGrail"
wrote:
On 3/19/2014 5:14 AM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to disable awl (or at least score it 0.001) when a
special rule hit like:
if URIBL_DBL_SPAM
score AWL 0
endif
Is there any other way to achieve this goal?
On 3/19/2014 5:14 AM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to disable awl (or at least score it 0.001) when a special rule
hit like:
if URIBL_DBL_SPAM
score AWL 0
endif
Is there any other way to achieve this goal?
I can't think of anyway to do it without adding functionality to
17 matches
Mail list logo
