Here's how this works if I'm in fact correct. There are two scoring
columns in Declude, the first is scored if a test fails, the second is
scored if a test is not failed. It sounds like the SKIPIFWEIGHT works on
the cumulative value of the first column only
This is exactly how it works.
Here's how this works if I'm in fact correct. There are two scoring
columns in Declude, the first is scored if a test fails, the second is
scored if a test is not failed. It sounds like the SKIPIFWEIGHT works
on the cumulative value of the first column only. Most don't use the
second column
I'm confused. And it's always been a subject that confuses me.
How about an example...
Mail fails SBL for 100 weight.
Mail fails revdns-whitelist filter which adds a -200 weight.
So net weight at this time is -100.
Next filter has a skipifweight 75. Would the filter get skipped or processed?
On 16 Nov 2004 at 18:53, R. Scott Perry wrote:
Scott -
> The actual weight is the same, regardless of whether SKIPIFWEIGHT is
> used. We're just talking about the weight that the SKIPIFWEIGHT
> option sees, which may differ from the actual weight of the E-mail.
Understood - Sorry about not being
> The SKIPIFWEIGHT option attempts to calculate the weight with the
> information it has. It will add the weights for any tests that have
> already been run and failed, but will not consider negative weights.
Are you saying that SKIPIFWEIGHT completely ignores any test that
passes a negative valu
The docs imply that SKIPIFWEIGHT is only usable in the actual filter file.
Correct.
Can it also be used in the global.cfg file?
No, it only has meaning in the filter files.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mai
On 16 Nov 2004 at 18:28, R. Scott Perry wrote:
> The SKIPIFWEIGHT option attempts to calculate the weight with the
> information it has. It will add the weights for any tests that have
> already been run and failed, but will not consider negative weights.
Scott -
Are you saying that SKIPIFWEIGH
; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 November 2004 10:28
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] FYI on SKIPIFWEIGHT
>
>
>
> >I think the question revolves specifically around when the negative
I think the question revolves specifically around when the negative
weights for Declude's built-in tests and possibly things like fromfiles,
spamdomains, and ipfiles are deducted from the weight used to calculate
SKIPIFWEIGHT. If these are only deducted after the filters have run, it
would be
Scott,
I'm personally only crediting one point for nNOLEGITCONTENT and
nIPNOTINMX, the rest are in custom filters, so this hasn't seemed to
cause me a noticeable issue, but it is something that I inquired about
many months ago after someone else reported the issue and you indicated
wasn't the c
-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] FYI on SKIPIFWEIGHT
>
>
> >Those using SKIPIFWEIGHT in filters
Those using SKIPIFWEIGHT in filters take note:
I have found that nNOLEGITCONTENT and nIPNOTINMX are scored AFTER all
filters.
...
Scott, can the NOGEGITCONTENT and IPNOTINMX scoring occur earlier before the
filters, as expected?
No. It isn't expected. :)
Specifically, when the SKIPIFWEIGHT optio
Those using SKIPIFWEIGHT in filters take note:
I have found that nNOLEGITCONTENT and nIPNOTINMX are scored AFTER all
filters.
What this means is if you have filters say with SKIPIFWEIGHT 35, a message
scores 36 before the filters, but it passes NOLEGITCONTENT and/or IPNOTINMX,
the final weight w
13 matches
Mail list logo
