, as I cannot dedicate too much
time to it.
Ivo Truxa (the creator of TxRep)
-Original Message-
From: Benny Pedersen [mailto:m...@junc.eu]
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 12:26 AM
To: Joe Quinn; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Cc: Ivo Truxa
Subject: Re: duplicate key value violates unique
I see that you know exactly what you want, but still feel obliged to post a
reply anyway, because this thread is publicly accessible in archives, hence
people who search a solution for a similar problem may replicate your patch
without realizing the consequences. So you can ignore my comments
RW-15 wrote
Ivo Truxa wrote:
meta AWL_FIX (URIBL_DBL_SPA || SOMETHING_ELSE || ANOTHER_ONE) AWL
-3
The value of AWL in the above is either 0 or 1, so the test is
unconditionally false. AFAIK there's no way to write a meta rule that
tests a rule's score.
No, the value of AWL
Ivo Truxa wrote
RW-15 wrote
Ivo Truxa wrote:
meta AWL_FIX (URIBL_DBL_SPA || SOMETHING_ELSE || ANOTHER_ONE) AWL
-3
The value of AWL in the above is either 0 or 1, so the test is
unconditionally false. AFAIK there's no way to write a meta rule that
tests a rule's score
Nuno Fernandes-2 wrote
Yes.. you are correct. The result is not added to the AWL database but i'm
ok with that.
Personally I think it makes no sense using AWL when you do not let it work,
and do not store all scores. A better place to make the modification is at
the bottom of the sub
Looks OK, but the problem is that the new score won't be added to the AWL
database. So for example if AWL tells the average score is 1.0, your RBL
tells it ought to be 10.0, AWL would normally reflect it, the average score
for the given email/IP combination would increase, and the next time AWL
From: Jay Sekora [via SpamAssassin]
Interesting idea! I searched in the spamassassin-dev archives but I
don't think I found the right patch; could you point me at it?
You can fid it also on SA Bugzilla (although not a bug) here:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7022
From: Jay Sekora [via SpamAssassin]
I forgot to comment on this:
Seems like just normalizing them to U+ might be better than
trying to transcribe them. (And that would let a brave or foolhardy
mail administrator write rules to match patterns seen in, say,
Chinese-language spam even
Hello,
Your message is a few months old, but I see no answer, and stumbled upon it
when writing an enhanced version of the normalize_charset feature, so
thought that I could perhaps help.
Jay Sekora wrote
Hi. We're running SpamAssassin 3.3.1, and pursuant to some advice I've
seen in
