On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 01:35 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > Reducing the meta score to compensate indeed might be good. My thought > was, to partially split up the score in case the meta doesn't match. I > guess the word "casino" in either the Subject or (even stronger) From > header might be worth at least 0.2 or something on its own. > Are there any published guidelines about setting scores?
> One note I missed earlier, regarding the quantifiers: Using unbounded > quantifiers can and will be expensive. Wherever possible you should use > bounds. So, rather than /.*/, using /.{0,20}/ with a suitable upper > bound will prevent the RE from backtracking an entire mail. Similar for > any occurrence of the + quantifier, of course. > Yes, that makes sense: long ago I implemented relatively regex handling on an 8/16 bit box (6809 running Flex-09) so I have some idea of what goes on during matching. Noted for a general trawl through my rule set. > You can find more info than you ever want here: > http://perldoc.perl.org/perlre.html > Bookmarked. > The missing > SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL though likely is simply because you don't have the > Perl Mail::SPF module installed. If you do, it should start working > out-of-the-box. > I'm certain that it would - if I can get it installed. I downloaded the tarball from CPAN but the INSTALL instructions it contains don't work because Module-Build.PM is missing. The Mail::SPF INSTALL file says its tested against Perl 5.6 while I'm running 5.8.8 and I don't know enough Perl to understand whether this is significant. Anyway, I have the 3rd edition of the Camel book on order, so I'll lay off until I've read it rather than boring this list rigid. Thanks for your help. Martin