On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Justin Mason wrote:
It looks to me like it'd meet all the criteria. Could it be in a file
with "tflags nopublish" at the top?
Nope, the file it's in is my primary miscellanous rules sandbox file, and
other rules from that file are being scored and published successfully.
There are several instances of "tflags SOMERULENAME nopublish" in that
file, but none that omit a rule name.
ACH_CANCELLED is physically the last rule in the file. The one immediately
before it is SCANNED_EXTERNAL, which is being published with a score.
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 17:12, John Hardin <[email protected]> wrote:
Okay, from the masscheck this rule looks really attractive:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20111202-r1209002-n/T_ACH_CANCELLED/detail
1.000 S.O and most hits on spams scoring < 5 points from other rules.
...so can anybody suggest why the masscheck is deciding it's not good enough
to publish?
Is its placement in an #ifplugin-else-endif block causing problems?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[email protected] FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [email protected]
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are my space habitats? Where is my flying car?
It's 2010 and all I got from the SF books of my youth is
the lousy dystopian government. -- perlhaqr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12 days until Bill of Rights day
