On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 21:35, Warren Togami <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/28/2009 04:32 PM, Justin Mason wrote: > >> I agree we should have used lastexternal. we can do the 'subtract' >> trick but I'd prefer to do it by simply splitting the rules into a >> RCVD_IN_PSBL_LASTEXTERNAL (score 2) and RCVD_IN_PSBL_DEEP (score 1), >> possibly using metas, so that users don't see a confusingly negative >> score hitting on spam -- principle of least surprise and all that. >> > > Could the lastexternal version be called simply RCVD_IN_PSBL? That seems > to be expected of DNSBL's and shorter name is better I guess. > sure, that works for me. -- --j.
