On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:31:17 -0500
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
> Is there a reason T_FROM_MISSPACED is still only a testing rule?
Never mind... I wasn't looking at an up-to-date ruleset.
Regards,
David.
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> I'm aware of __* rules, but I'd not noticed T_* rules before. And
> looking back through my spam I don't see any hits until a couple of
> weeks ago, so presumably something
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
I'm aware of __* rules, but I'd not noticed T_* rules before. And looking
back through my spam I don't see any hits until a couple of weeks ago, so
presumably something has changed.
Wait, you're seeing this in a live SA
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
I'm aware of __* rules, but I'd not noticed T_* rules before. And
looking back through my spam I don't see any hits until a couple of
weeks ago, so presumably something has changed.
Wait, you're seeing this in a live SA install?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
reported.
but where is it def
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 17:47 +, RW wrote:
> I'm aware of __* rules, but I'd not noticed T_* rules before. And
> looking back through my spam I don't see any hits until a couple of
> weeks ago, so presumably something has changed.
Yup, the SA version you're running. And along with that change, s
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:11:47 -0600 (CST)
David B Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
> > John Hardin wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't
> > > > defined?
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 11:11 -0600, David B Funk wrote:
> The other special rule name is the hidden rule, one that starts with "__".
> Those rules are assigned a score of 0 but do run regardless and aren't
> reported in the scoring report. The intention there is that they're used
> to form meta-rule
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
> John Hardin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> >
> > > Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
> >
> > Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
> > reported
RW wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
> John Hardin wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
>>>
>> Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
>> reported.
>>
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
>
> > Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
>
> Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
> reported.
but where is it defined? greping under /var
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 15:37 +, RW wrote:
> Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
It's a T_ testing rule. These don't score the default 1.0 with a missing
explicit score set.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
reported.
X-Spam-Report:
...
* 0.0 T_FROM_MISSPACED From: missing whitespace
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
13 matches
Mail list logo
