Try something like this if I understand you correctly trying to score is a __ rule:
meta OBFU_UNSUB_UL ( __OBFU_UNSUB_UL >=1 ) There are plenty of rules that are designed to be conditions in other meta rules. Now that you've created a rule that relies on that condition you can score the meta rule and describe it how you feel best. On Thu, May 11, 2023, 11:21 Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> writes: > > > On 11.05.23 10:58, Greg Troxel wrote: > >>I am seeing a lot of "claim your prize from X", where X is a known > >>company, coming from fresh foo.autos domains. I bet y'all are seeing > >>this too. Until these get on blocklists they don't score that high. > >> > >>One rule that does hit is > >> > >> OBFU_UNSUB_UL > >> > >>which is defined in 72_active.cf as meta, and does not seem to have a > >>score defined. > >> > >>I put in local.cf (not knowing where it was defined) > >> > >>score OBFU_UNSUB_UL (1) > >> > >>to bump it up, but I got an error that I can't adjust an undefined > >>score. However, scoring gives it 1 point. > > > > the default score for any rule is 1 poing, unless that rule starts > > with T_ (0.01) or __ (0, used for meta rules) > > ok and not surprising. > > But is it good practice for the main distributed rules to rely on this > default? It feels like a lint/pedantic error to define a rule that is > not T_ or __ and does not have an assigned score. But maybe this is > common and normal. > > > so, you have changed nothing. > > I asked for an additional point over the previous score. I got an error > in the log: > > May 11 10:47:46 s1 spamd[11723]: config: score: relative score without > previous setting in configuration > May 11 10:47:46 s1 spamd[11723]: config: invalid 'score' value in > /usr/pkg/etc/spamassassin/local.cf (line 271): > score\tOBFU_UNSUB_UL\t\t(2) > > which is what I'm asking about. > > >>I wonder if there is a default 1 point for rules with no score, but the > >>adjustment process doesn't respect that default, or if not what is going > >>on. > > > > > https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/4.0.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html > > That says scores in () are relative to the "already set score". So > technically this is not a failure to follow docs, in that no score is > set. But it seems unhelpful to users not to be able to see > > FOO_RULE 1 > > in a report and to decide they like that rule and do > > score FOO_RULE (1) > > to tell SA to give it one local point plus the score that the official > config gives is. > > So maybe that (n) expression should be ok with the implicit 1. >
