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, 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 > > > > > > > > > > I know, and so it should have zero score... unluckily that causes SA > > > > > not to > > > > > apply the rule.unluckily even the -0.001 can change spam to ham... > > > > > > > > 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 rule if > > > different rule(s) match. > > 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 changed it, after first update it would be > lost :) > Is it forbidden for SA rules to have names starting with __ or merely unconventional?
Just checking.... :-) Martin
