https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7022
--- Comment #15 from AXB <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #13) > (In reply to AXB from comment #12) > > (In reply to John Hardin from comment #11) > > > (In reply to AXB from comment #10) > > > > > > > > Am I getting this right? > > > > 1.- normalization would have to be switched on ? > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > > > 2.- normalized rules would require a tflag ? > > > > > > That's backwards. Running against the normalized text would be the > > > default, > > > you'd need a tflag to run against the non-normalized (raw) text. (I > > > hesitate to use "raw" in this discussion, to avoid confusion with > > > "rawbody".) > > > > hmm.. that means that 90% of our rules would have the opt-out tflag when 90% > > of the spamflow is detected without normalizing anything? > > I must be missing something > > I agree with AXB. If you want to use the normalized text, the tflag would > be required so new rules can use the concept and not modify all the > pre-existing rules. Imo, this sort of change is far from trivial (even scary) and if anything, I think it should be released as a fork for the ones who may want this, That way it can be tested thoroughly before it even comes close to the existing, released code avoiding hundreds of fires buring at the same time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
