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? -- Dan McDonald, CCIE# 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX Austin Energy
