https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735
--- Comment #26 from Loren Wilton <lwil...@earthlink.net> --- > Loren, I might be a bit tired from long work day, but I'm not sure what you > are implying/suggesting.. tried reading it thrice. :-) Sorry, I'm too verbose because I don't know the actual code at all well. > Unrun rule currently has simple definition: either it was not run at all, or > result was not received (timeout). Unrun rules in metas are evaluated twice > as That is what I think should happen. I don't understand the concern expressed in Comment 19. > Ugh it gets a bit wonky. Current conf parser considers any unknown string as > true. Does this mean that an undefined rule appearing in a meta evaluates to true rather than to "unrun"? If so I see that as a possible problem; I'd prefer an undefined rule to be treated as unrun, but I can see the logic of treating it as a constant value (but I'd think false makes more sense). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
