Re: reuse (was: Renaming rules?)

2009-04-02 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 15:34 -0500, Michael Parker wrote: > On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:17 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > #reuse NEW_NAME OLD_CRUFT > > Actually thats not what you want. > > Here is the first question to ask. When you say rename, what do you > mean exactly? Actually, really just

Re: reuse (was: Renaming rules?)

2009-04-02 Thread Michael Parker
On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:17 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: Please keep in mind you can step into my soliloquy at any time. :) I seem to recall I've seen some tflags(?) or something commands, to have a newly named rule inherit previous mass-check results. Is my mind playing tricks on me, or does

Re: reuse (was: Renaming rules?)

2009-04-02 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
Please keep in mind you can step into my soliloquy at any time. :) > > I seem to recall I've seen some tflags(?) or something commands, to have > > a newly named rule inherit previous mass-check results. Is my mind > > playing tricks on me, or does it actually exist? > > Lots of grepping the sand

reuse (was: Renaming rules?)

2009-04-02 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 21:04 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > I seem to recall I've seen some tflags(?) or something commands, to have > a newly named rule inherit previous mass-check results. Is my mind > playing tricks on me, or does it actually exist? Lots of grepping the sandboxes later...

Renaming rules?

2009-04-02 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
I seem to recall I've seen some tflags(?) or something commands, to have a newly named rule inherit previous mass-check results. Is my mind playing tricks on me, or does it actually exist? Also, does or doesn't this make any sense for ruleqa? Reason is, that I'd like to rename a badly named rule

[Bug 6092] Empty 'X-Spam-Level:' header

2009-04-02 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6092 --- Comment #4 from Karsten Bräckelmann 2009-04-02 07:15:14 PST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Point is/was, that I don't want the X-Spam-Level header removed altogether, > but > ONLY when it has nothing to show for (no asterixes)

[Bug 6092] Empty 'X-Spam-Level:' header

2009-04-02 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6092 --- Comment #3 from Mark Martinec 2009-04-02 05:42:05 PST --- > Point is/was, that I don't want the X-Spam-Level header removed altogether, > but ONLY when it has nothing to show for (no asterixes). There is a difference between a

[Bug 6092] Empty 'X-Spam-Level:' header

2009-04-02 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6092 r...@asarian-host.net changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WORKSFORME |WONTFIX --- Comment

[Bug 6092] Empty 'X-Spam-Level:' header

2009-04-02 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6092 Karsten Bräckelmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED OS/Vers

[Bug 6092] Empty 'X-Spam-Level:' header

2009-04-02 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6092 r...@asarian-host.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r...@asarian-host.net

[Bug 6092] New: Empty 'X-Spam-Level:' header

2009-04-02 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6092 Summary: Empty 'X-Spam-Level:' header Product: Spamassassin Version: 3.2.5 Platform: Other OS/Version: FreeBSD Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P5