Chris Santerre wrote: >>1. I tried the following rule on some test emails: >> >>meta TOO_MANY_URIBLS URIBL_OB_SURBL && URIBL_JP_SURBL > > ......................^ Modifier missing?
Modifier? What's a modifier? While it might be more common to see someone using parentheses, AFAIK they aren't required: meta TOO_MANY_URIBLS (URIBL_OB_SURBL && URIBL_JP_SURBL) I think question 1 is entirely answered by the missing _ in the rule name for the score statement. That would cause the TOO_MANY_URIBLS to default back to 1.0 for a score. As for question 2) > 2. I then tried a test rule, for sanity: > > meta TEST_AMP_1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO && MIME_HTML_ONLY > describe TEST_AMP_1 On too many URIBLs > score TEST_AMP_1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 I suspect that TEST_AMP_1 failed to match because your rulefiles contain syntax errors and the parser is getting confused. Certainly the missing underscore above would have a good chance of breaking the parser. I'd suggest running spamassassin --lint to look for other typos. lint should run and exit without printing anything if all is well. Also, style comment for Anthony. If you're just doing a fixed score that you want to apply no mater what scoreset is used, you don't need to repeat it for times. SA accepts this format: score TEST_AMP_1 1.2 As being equivalent to: score TEST_AMP_1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 And it's a little easier to recognize the rule is just a fixed-score rule. Also, SA only accepts those 2 formats. You must have either 1 score or 4 scores on a score line. You can't have 2,3,or any other number of scores or the parser will barf.
