On 25/10/2018 11:43, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25/10/2018 10:33, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
bug number would help more...
On 25.10.18 10:58, Reio Remma wrote:
The bug contains no additional info. :) I was simply asked to post
to the list.
and this is exactly why it would be better to post the link to the
bug, or
at least the bug number, instead of just link to the attachment...
On 25.10.18 11:46, Reio Remma wrote:
No worries. Here it is:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7644
Good. I don't see FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ in rules now (apparently due to
John Hardin's change) , but according to original description, they seem to
match:
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO From name in message + X-Priority
A+B = 2.5
* 2.5 XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ Has X-Priority header + short subject
B+C = 2.5
* 2.5 FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ From name in message + short or no subject
A+C = 2.5
so, in fact neither of them overlaps, but they all three in common seem to
match three different conditions, where final score was 3*2.5
currently we have FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO_NO_SUB which matches
A+B+C
but does not match short subject now.
This could fix your problem, can you rescan the mail?
current scores:
score FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ 0.001 2.499 0.001 2.499
score FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO 0.001 2.499 0.001 2.499
score FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO_NO_SUB 2.499 0.001 2.499 0.001
score XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ 2.499 2.131 2.499 2.131
note that FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ and FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO are not defined.
I did first think of FRNAME_IN_MSG_XPRIO_NO_SUB balancing those three rules
- it could score negatively, so when mail would match all three meta-rules,
the final score wouldn't be triple of their scores.
however, I understand that such thing is too much for manual testing.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
We are but packets in the Internet of life (userfriendly.org)
