https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735
--- Comment #27 from Henrik Krohns <apa...@hege.li> --- (In reply to Loren Wilton from comment #26) > I don't understand the concern expressed in Comment 19. It's been exaplained a few times. Rules that are simply intended for reducing FPs are not run in daily masschecks. meta __NOT_SPOOFED SPF_PASS || DKIM_VALID || !__LAST_EXTERNAL_RELAY_NO_AUTH || ALL_TRUSTED SPF_PASS or DKIM_VALID are unrun. Double eval will not make the meta hit. (0||0||0||0) && (1||1||0||0) It makes it harder to tune rules as you need to wait a week for results. There should be a way to bypass it, if the dependencies are not considered critical. > 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). Sorry, to clarify, this only applies to "if" clauses. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
