On 5/25/22 16:12, 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 spotted the issue checking DMARC failures but other rules may be affected as well. Giovanni
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
