72_active.cf is leaking lots of T_ rules
most if not all seem to come from /rulesrc/sandbox(felicity/70_other.cf
considering that T_ is supposed to be testing and shouldn't be published:
1- do we need to add a nopublish to these?
or
2- do we need to remove the confusing T_ in the rule name?
On 2011-11-07 11:31, Axb wrote:
72_active.cf is leaking lots of T_ rules
most if not all seem to come from /rulesrc/sandbox(felicity/70_other.cf
considering that T_ is supposed to be testing and shouldn't be published:
1- do we need to add a nopublish to these?
or
2- do we need to remove the
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Axb wrote:
Can't figure out why they they get published with a T_* in 72_active.cf when
the original rules don't have them.
Would someone pls clue me in?
A manually-named T_ rule is for testing.
The T_ added by masscheck-rescore means not performing well enough to
On 11/7/2011 8:44 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Axb wrote:
Can't figure out why they they get published with a T_* in
72_active.cf when the original rules don't have them.
Would someone pls clue me in?
A manually-named T_ rule is for testing.
The T_ added by masscheck-rescore
On 2011-11-07 15:52, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 11/7/2011 8:44 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Axb wrote:
Can't figure out why they they get published with a T_* in
72_active.cf when the original rules don't have them.
Would someone pls clue me in?
A manually-named T_ rule is for
