Thanks for giving this more consideration. I think these GUI changes will help many! The examples of NWLI are great and clarify a lot.
The only thing I don't see in the example is* the use of the + (only) switch and how it differs from just having a N instead of N+ for example. * I see where you wrote: The NWLI conditions defined in a line are combined using a logical AND -- so N-W+ is combined to: NOT noprocessing AND whitelisted That's clear enough, but what's the difference then between N-W+ and N-W (without the +)? Wouldn't that still be not noprocessing and whitelisted? Is the + optional? On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 7:55 AM Thomas Eckardt <thomas.ecka...@thockar.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > fixed in assp 2.6.6 *SPAM-Evaporator* build 21293: > > - if a file for regular expressions contained an incomplete default > definition for the !!!NWLI!!! directive, this directive was not applied to > the regexes in the file > > > > changed: > > - some corrections and additions to the main help text in the GUI > > - the behavior of the 'NWLI' extension in regular expression definitions > is enhanced > > The NWLI conditions defined in a line are combined using a logical AND -- > so N-W+ is combined to: NOT noprocessing AND whitelisted. > In fact, the weight is skipped, if any of the defined NWLI options does > not match for a mail. If multiple lines would match, the weight of the > first matching line is used. > This way you can define different weights for the same regular expression, > but different mail states like in this example: > (1) foo=>0:>NW - weight is zero if noprocessing AND whitelisted > (2) foo=>0.5:>NW- - weight factor is 0.5 if noprocessing AND NOT > whitelisted > (3) foo=>1.5:>N-W - weight factor is 1.5 if NOT noprocessing AND > whitelisted > (4) foo=>55:>N-W- - weight is 55 if NOT noprocessing AND NOT whitelisted > (5) foo=>2:>W - this line will not be processed, because line 1 or 3 would > have matched before, depending on the noprocessing flag > (6) foo=>2:>N- - this line will not be processed, because line 3 or 4 > would have matched before, depending on the whitelisted flag > > > Thomas > > DISCLAIMER: > ******************************************************* > This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally > privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the > individual to whom it is addressed. > This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no > known virus in this email! > ******************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test >
_______________________________________________ Assp-test mailing list Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
