On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 18:40, Paul Stead wrote:
On 21/10/16 16:22, John Hardin wrote:
> I was going to say: you can't write a rule based on the *current* AWL
> adjustment because that's calculated after all the rules have hit. But
> SA *could* potentially have a rule that checks the current historical
> average that AWL uses...
>
> I suggest you file a New Feature bug to expose a mechanism to use the
> current AWL average (not the per-message adjustment) in a rule.
Yikes, sorry in my haste I didn't read *AWL* ....
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AWL.html#template_tags
So, to the OP: try the tagmatch plugin to look at where _AWLMEAN_ is
(e.g.) <= -1 and _AWLCOUNT_ is greater than (e.g.) 10 and that may get you
what you want for a meta to use with the rules you want to control.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The third basic rule of firearms safety:
Keep your booger hook off the bang switch!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
304 days since the first successful real return to launch site (SpaceX)
