On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 05:12:30PM +0300, Henrik K wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 04:04:33PM +0200, Giovanni Bechis wrote: > > Hi, > > meta rules starts at the lower priority of the rules they are composed by > > (diff for regression test attached). > > > > If you are using a meta rule that mixes network and non network tests the > > meta rule's priority will be -100. > > After some tests, it seems that if you mix DMARC rules (priority 500) with > > other rules, DMARC checks may start earlier then expected. > > Is this just not well documented (at least in Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf) ? > > Meta-rules have not had "priority" since dynamic meta evaluation was > committed in Bug 7735. > > They do in the sense that you _can_ set a priority value on them, but it > only affects any depending rule to be set to that priority. Which should be > useful when shortcircuiting using meta rules. > > If this is the case of DMARC not waiting for SPF and DKIM module, maybe it > can be done with action_depends_on_tags or something.
I will implement similar async method to DMARC as FromNameSpoof has (_check_eval).
