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 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? > > > > so, disable it and create a new one" > > score SPF_PASS 0 > > header __SPF_PASS eval:check_for_spf_pass() > > describe __SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record > > tflags __SPF_PASS nice userconf > > ... this way I can manually re-write every rule that ever depends on SPF_PASS
I grepped /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/updates.spamassassin.org and found no rules relying on SPF_PASS do you have rules that depend on it? > -- Daniel J McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
