Justin Mason wrote, On 3/5/07 9:45 PM: > actually, that should be fine... metas can depend on metas.
That's strange, now I can't find where I saw it written that it can't. I found it while looking for information on the meta rule syntax to try to figure out why those tests were producing inconsistent results. In any case, now I really don't understand the results. Look at this one from the last nightly mass check. To see just what I'm testing at the Rule QA web page, use the filter http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20070502-r534356-n/%2F(SIDNEY_%5BA-Z%5D%7CEXTRA_MPART_TYPE) First, why do the T_SIDNEY_NOE_NEMPT through T_SIDNEY_NOE_HTML_EMPT rules score what they do (all spam, no ham, S/O 1.00, and especially that first one which claims to get 40% of all spam and 0% ham? If we really had a rule that could do that we would be in great shape, but somehow I don't think that "Not Outlook Express and having no EXTRA_MPART_TYPE" is really a test that matches 40% of all spam and 0% of all ham :-) Second, why are the T_SIDNEY_NOT_OE_WITHEXTRA_MPART_TYPE_WITH_HTML through T_SIDNEY_OE_WITHOUT_EXTRA_MPART_TYPE rules still in the mass check when they are no longer in the sandbox file that I checked in? -- sidney
