Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-15 Thread John Hardin
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 14.10.08 12:17, John Hardin wrote: You're using BAYES_99 as a poison pill rule, right? Well, no - that wsas just an example. However I met this one most often. Ah. Okay, I misinterpreted your initial post, then. If you're not willing t

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-15 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > >>so, change it to (+) 0.001. how likely is it to change ham to spam? > > > >the same chance, I'd say, for cases someone uses e.g. DKIM... > >That's why I search for different solution... > > > >Well, this was not the first time I'd like to

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread John Hardin
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: so, change it to (+) 0.001. how likely is it to change ham to spam? the same chance, I'd say, for cases someone uses e.g. DKIM... That's why I search for different solution... Well, this was not the first time I'd like to clear effect of a r

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread Henrik K
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:24:35AM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 18:17 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On 14.10.08 11:05, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:55 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:31 +0200, Matus U

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread Daniel J McDonald
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 18:17 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 14.10.08 11:05, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:55 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:31 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > > > > > On 14.10.08 16:20, Martin Gregorie wr

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 14.10.08 11:05, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:55 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:31 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > > > On 14.10.08 16:20, Martin Gregorie wrote: > > > > Why not change its name to __SPF_PASS and only use it in meta-r

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread Daniel J McDonald
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:55 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:31 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > On 14.10.08 16:20, Martin Gregorie wrote: > > > Why not change its name to __SPF_PASS and only use it in meta-rules? > > > > because that's SA rule, even if I chan

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread Martin Gregorie
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:31 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:36 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > On 14.10.08 07:12, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 08:55 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, October 13, 2008 16:39

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:36 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On 14.10.08 07:12, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 08:55 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > > On Mon, October 13, 2008 16:39, Henrik K wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> meta SPF_PASS (SPF_PASS && !BAY

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread Martin Gregorie
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:36 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 14.10.08 07:12, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 08:55 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > On Mon, October 13, 2008 16:39, Henrik K wrote: > > > > > > > > >> meta SPF_PASS (SPF_PASS && !BAYES_99) > > >

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 14.10.08 07:12, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 08:55 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > On Mon, October 13, 2008 16:39, Henrik K wrote: > > > > > > >> meta SPF_PASS (SPF_PASS && !BAYES_99) > > > > Obviously you can't redefine SPF_PASS on the fly. > > > > On 13.10.08 2

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-14 Thread Daniel J McDonald
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 08:55 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On Mon, October 13, 2008 16:39, Henrik K wrote: > > > > >> meta SPF_PASS (SPF_PASS && !BAYES_99) > > > Obviously you can't redefine SPF_PASS on the fly. > > On 13.10.08 21:08, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > olso that SPF_PASS was ne

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-13 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> On Mon, October 13, 2008 16:39, Henrik K wrote: > > >> meta SPF_PASS (SPF_PASS && !BAYES_99) > > Obviously you can't redefine SPF_PASS on the fly. On 13.10.08 21:08, Benny Pedersen wrote: > olso that SPF_PASS was newer meant to let any msg throught it was just a > pointer that SPF is not fail

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-13 Thread Benny Pedersen
On Mon, October 13, 2008 16:39, Henrik K wrote: >> meta SPF_PASS (SPF_PASS && !BAYES_99) > Obviously you can't redefine SPF_PASS on the fly. olso that SPF_PASS was newer meant to let any msg throught it was just a pointer that SPF is not fail recipient still need to add sender into local.cf / u

Re: conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-13 Thread Henrik K
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 03:29:57PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > Hello, > > so the spammers got it. my required_score is 3.5 (the same as for BAYES_99) Pretty low. But I guess it's ok if you only tag. > and SPF_PASS is -0.001. So, even clear spam (I haven't seen FP for BAYES_99 > for a

conditionally zero score of a rule

2008-10-13 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Hello, so the spammers got it. my required_score is 3.5 (the same as for BAYES_99) and SPF_PASS is -0.001. So, even clear spam (I haven't seen FP for BAYES_99 for a LONG LONG time) is passed because of SPF (which teoretically should not happen. Now I have a question: Should I zero score of SPF_PA