Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-23 Thread John Hardin
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, RW wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:24:07 -0800 (PST) John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, RW wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 09:49:34 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: But as I said it's the decimal fractions that cause it to fail and the above rule doesn't need to conta

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-23 Thread RW
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:24:07 -0800 (PST) John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, RW wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 09:49:34 +0100 > > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > But as I said it's the decimal fractions that cause it to fail > > and the above rule doesn't need to contain d

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-23 Thread John Hardin
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, RW wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 09:49:34 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: But as I said it's the decimal fractions that cause it to fail and the above rule doesn't need to contain decimal fractions. On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:36:52 -0500 micah anderson wrote: How can I do

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-23 Thread John Hardin
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > But as I said it's the decimal fractions that cause it to fail and the > above rule doesn't need to contain decimal fractions. On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:36:52 -0500 micah anderson wrote: How can I do it without the fractions? On 20.11.18 21

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-23 Thread RW
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 09:49:34 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> > But as I said it's the decimal fractions that cause it to fail > >> > and the above rule doesn't need to contain decimal fractions. > > >On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:36:52 -0500 micah anderson wrote: > >> How can I do it withou

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-23 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> But as I said it's the decimal fractions that cause it to fail and the > above rule doesn't need to contain decimal fractions. On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:36:52 -0500 micah anderson wrote: How can I do it without the fractions? On 20.11.18 21:05, RW wrote: meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH 4*__MAILB

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread RW
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:14:54 -0800 (PST) John Hardin wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, RW wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:36:52 -0500 > > micah anderson wrote: > >> > >> How can I do it without the fractions? > > > > meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH __MAILBOX + __LOCAL_EXCEEDED + > > __LOCAL_STORA

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread John Hardin
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, RW wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:36:52 -0500 micah anderson wrote: How can I do it without the fractions? meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH __MAILBOX + __LOCAL_EXCEEDED + __LOCAL_STORAGE + __LOCAL_LIMIT >= 3 D'oh! That's actually the clearest solution (though I would do ">

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread RW
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:36:52 -0500 micah anderson wrote: > > But > > as I said it's the decimal fractions that cause it to fail and the > > above rule doesn't need to contain decimal fractions. > > How can I do it without the fractions? meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH 4*__MAILBOX + 4*__LOCAL_EXCE

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread micah anderson
"Bill Cole" writes: > On 20 Nov 2018, at 13:53, John Hardin wrote: > >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, micah anderson wrote: > [...] What it does do is prevent compiled rules from being installed. But as I said it's the decimal fractions that cause it to fail and the above rule doesn't

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread Bill Cole
On 20 Nov 2018, at 13:53, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, micah anderson wrote: [...] What it does do is prevent compiled rules from being installed. But as I said it's the decimal fractions that cause it to fail and the above rule doesn't need to contain decimal fractions. How can

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread John Hardin
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, micah anderson wrote: RW writes: On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:53:18 -0500 micah anderson wrote: RW writes: On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:38:24 -0500 micah anderson wrote: I was doing multiplication in rules to add scores, like this: meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH (((0.4 * __MAILBOX

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread micah anderson
RW writes: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:53:18 -0500 > micah anderson wrote: > >> RW writes: >> >> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:38:24 -0500 >> > micah anderson wrote: >> > >> >> I was doing multiplication in rules to add scores, like this: >> >> >> >> meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH (((0.4 * __MAILBOX) + (

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread RW
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:53:18 -0500 micah anderson wrote: > RW writes: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:38:24 -0500 > > micah anderson wrote: > > > >> I was doing multiplication in rules to add scores, like this: > >> > >> meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH (((0.4 * __MAILBOX) + (0.4 * > >> __LOCAL_EXCEEDE

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread Henrik K
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:53:18PM -0500, micah anderson wrote: > RW writes: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:38:24 -0500 > > micah anderson wrote: > > > >> I was doing multiplication in rules to add scores, like this: > >> > >> meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH (((0.4 * __MAILBOX) + (0.4 * > >> __LOCAL_E

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread micah anderson
RW writes: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:38:24 -0500 > micah anderson wrote: > >> I was doing multiplication in rules to add scores, like this: >> >> meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH (((0.4 * __MAILBOX) + (0.4 * >> __LOCAL_EXCEEDED) + (0.4 * __LOCAL_STORAGE) + (0.4 * __LOCAL_LIMIT)) >> > 1) >> >> but now w

Re: multiplying in rules

2018-11-20 Thread RW
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:38:24 -0500 micah anderson wrote: > I was doing multiplication in rules to add scores, like this: > > meta LOCAL_EXCEEDED_PHISH (((0.4 * __MAILBOX) + (0.4 * > __LOCAL_EXCEEDED) + (0.4 * __LOCAL_STORAGE) + (0.4 * __LOCAL_LIMIT)) > > 1) > > but now when I run spamassassin --