https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6012
--- Comment #7 from Justin Mason <[email protected]> 2009-02-27 11:43:01 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Yes, this fixes the bug. In this case, as long as URIBL_*_SURBL are marked as > reuse, and T_URIBL_META_SURBL_ANY is not, it will hit when appropriate. > > I think I'm fine with changing the syntax so that "reuse FOO" acts the same as > "reuse FOO FOO". > > My concern was just that: "reuse FOO" reuses hits from FOO and maps them to > FOO, while "reuse FOO BAR" takes hits from BAR and maps them to FOO. So if you > want an old rule "BAR" to be treated like "FOO", you need to change "reuse > FOO" > to "reuse FOO FOO BAR", which is a bit unintuitive. what about adopting the same semantics as current "#reuse"? ie. "reuse FOO BAR" would be interpreted as if it were "reuse FOO FOO BAR", in other words the reuse of FOO is implicit and doesn't need to be specified. I can't think of a scenario where "reuse FOO BAR" -- ie. "old rule BAR should be treated like FOO, but existing hits on FOO should not" -- would be appropriate... -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
