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 LONG LONG time) is passed because of SPF (which teoretically should > not happen. > > Now I have a question: Should I zero score of SPF_PASS (I don't want > SPA_PASS to score positively) or just a create meta rule of Zeroing will disable it, it's better to have it in logs for analyzing. And for rules that might depend on it. It makes no sense to try adjusting other rules when you already know what you want. Simply shortcircuit BAYES_99 as spam or set it at 4 or higher, problem solved. > meta BAYESPAM_SPFOK (BAYES_99 && SPF_PASS) > score BAYESPAM_SPFOK 0.001 Kludge. > Is it possible to score > > score BAYESPAM_SPFOK -$(SPF_PASS) ? No. If you feel like testing, I'm not sure what score SPF_PASS (0.001) would result in. 0 of course, but not sure if it gets disabled at that stage. > which means, clear the effect of one rule if > > or can I do this? > > meta SPF_PASS (SPF_PASS && !BAYES_99) Obviously you can't redefine SPF_PASS on the fly.
