On 09/28/2009 04:37 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 21:35, Warren Togami <[email protected] <mailto:[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.
I assume this means we are capable of both deep parsing and lastexternal with a single lookup?
Warren
