So I'm having some difficulty grasping some stuff about "meta" rules.
Maybe now that I've got >350 lines of local spamassassin config, it's time for me to delve into the source and join the devel list or something, but let's see if I can figure this out. I suspect my problem is related to the order in which meta rules are evaluated, or the "legality" of nesting them. Is there some limit to the depth to which meta rules can be nested inside other meta rules? I had one like "meta __RULE (__FOO && __BAR)" which didn't work, but when I replaced the __BAR with a copy and paste from the "meta __BAR" definition, it suddenly worked. I also am having a heck of a time getting some meta rules to work at all. I tried defining two meta rules with exactly the same definition, and one works and the other doesn't, even though since they're identical, both should match if either one does. The meta rules clearly aren't being evaluated in the order they are defined. I thought it might be alphabetical, but when I renamed them so the ones that needed to go first came first alphabetically, it didn't help. A quick look at do_meta_tests() in PerMsgStatus.pm seems to tell me that they're not being evaluated in any particular order at all (whatever order the hash keys are returned); if that's true, there's no way to predict whether any given rule will work or not. Is this the case? If I'm right, and the problem is the order in which the rules are being evaluated, it should be easy enough to fix; best would be to do them in the order they're defined, but alphabetical would probably be easier to implement with a strategically placed sort() call. Or am I way off? -Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
