Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Matt Kettler verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> In theory, a feature could be added to let you do something like this
>>> (SA doesn't have this feature, but I'm proposing it could be added):
>>>
>
> On 22.09.09 11:46, ArtemGr wrote:
>
>> That would be a nic
Matus UHLAR - fantomas fantomas.sk> writes:
> You haven't read Matt's explanation of why it wasn't a good idea, did you?
>
> There are rules with negative scores, which can puch the score back to the
> ham, e.g. whitelist. Would you like to stop scoring before e.g. whitelist is
> checked?
I am n
> Matt Kettler verizon.net> writes:
> > In theory, a feature could be added to let you do something like this
> > (SA doesn't have this feature, but I'm proposing it could be added):
On 22.09.09 11:46, ArtemGr wrote:
> That would be a nice optimization: most of the spam we receive have a >10
> sc
Matt Kettler verizon.net> writes:
> In theory, a feature could be added to let you do something like this
> (SA doesn't have this feature, but I'm proposing it could be added):
That would be a nice optimization: most of the spam we receive have a >10 score.
It seems a real waste of resource to pe
ArtemGr wrote:
> I would like to configure Spamassassin to only do certain tests
> when the "required_score" is not yet reached.
> For example, do the usual rule-based and bayesian tests first,
> and if the score is lower than the "required_score",
> then do the DCC and RAZOR2 tests.
>
> Is it poss
