https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5842
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-04 01:21 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > if we don't have the data, we can't trust the GA, but we should be able to > > trust that the S/O ratios will be the same (since it's the same domains and > > the same lookup logic!). > > Yeah, we're probably going to have to do some copying. I'm not sure who's > corpus was responsible for the scores that were generated for 3.2. well, we had no form of reuse for SPF, so the scores were based on whatever SPF records were in place at the time of mass-check. in my opinion, basing scores on this is better than on no data at all. > > However that doesn't solve the core issue -- "tflags net". we need to keep > > the network lookup code running with "tflags net". This is necessary for > > the --reuse support, so that it knows to set the rule score to 0 when > > attempting to reuse hits. > > Really? Isn't that what #reuse is supposed to be taking care of? Why a dual > dependency on both #reuse and "tflags net"? We could modify the code so that it knows that #reuse implies "tflags net", sure. basically I didn't want the effects of #reuse to be too widespread in the main Mail::SpamAssassin classes, since it's only supposed to affect mass-checks. > > What I did in the past with the ROUND_THE_WORLD test was to split it into > > two > > rules, ROUND_THE_WORLD and ROUND_THE_WORLD_LOCAL; the latter was set0, the > > former set2. What about doing that with the SPF rules -- adding a duplicate > > ruleset for SPF_PASS_LOCAL, SPF_NEUTRAL_LOCAL etc.? (better names welcome > > of > > course.) > > I *really* want to avoid different rules like above. It'll confuse people and > cause those who aren't confused to write metas to combine the two versions. I see your point -- they are pretty messy. other suggestions? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
