On 2/5/2018 11:48 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2018-02-05 10:46:
tflags TEST_RULE nice
Then in a later file you decide to add:
tflags TEST_RULE net
tflags TEST_RULE config=inherit net
could be usefull :=)
tflags TEST_RULE config=override net
that way we
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2018-02-05 10:46:
tflags TEST_RULE nice
Then in a later file you decide to add:
tflags TEST_RULE net
tflags TEST_RULE config=inherit net
could be usefull :=)
tflags TEST_RULE config=override net
that way we have a choice to use defaults still
On 2/5/2018 4:07 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
then I repeatedly use the "tflags" directive in official rules and
locally:
So I think you are saying you have a rule in one file, for example, a
default cf file with this line:
tflags TEST_RULE nice
Then in a later file
Hello,
then I repeatedly use the "tflags" directive in official rules and locally:
Does second appearance of "tflags" override the old value or just adds new
flags?
in other words:
Do I have to repeat all flags in tflags directive, or is it enough to add
new flag?
there
Hello,
when "tflags" is repeated (e.g. in local.cf and /var/lib/spamassassin),
are all flags set or does the next appearance clear flags set formerly?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to th
On 3 Aug 2017, at 11:21, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, John Schmerold wrote:
I don't understand the purpose of tflags. Where is this parameter
explained?
man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
That will USUALLY work on most Unix-like systems that have SA installed,
but sometimes
somewhat fuzzy term that depends on context - it could refer
to a single rule, a cluster of rules in a single file, a group of files, or
"all active rules files". It's not a formal definition within SpamAssassin.
In this case it's referring to one rule - tflags are only set on a per-rule
Apologies, I should have used the phrase "score set" rather than
ruleset. The "score" section of Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf talks about
it briefly, as does the this wiki page:
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2017-08-03 10:38,
ntext - it could
refer to a single rule, a cluster of rules in a single file, a group of
files, or "all active rules files". It's not a formal definition within
SpamAssassin. In this case it's referring to one rule - tflags are only
set on a per-rule basis.
Any net-based rule is one th
On 2017-08-03 10:38, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
> The most common ones that I make use of are "multiple" and "maxhits"
> in order to allow a rule to be scored for each time it hits, but to
> stop counting after some threshold. I also use the "net" tflag so
> that RBL checks only run when a
The Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf man page includes a section on tflags and
their various functions, but generally speaking tflags allow you to
alter the way in which a rule is processed.
The most common ones that I make use of are "multiple" and "maxhits"
in order to allow
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, John Schmerold wrote:
I don't understand the purpose of tflags. Where is this parameter explained?
man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
Basically it allows setting some per-rule metadata that affects how the
rule behaves.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp
I don't understand the purpose of tflags. Where is this parameter explained?
--
John Schmerold
Katy Computer Systems, Inc
https://katy.com
St Louis
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Philip Prindeville
<philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com> wrote:
> Can you use something like:
>
> header __L_X_NO_RELAY exists:X-No-Relay
> tflags __L_X_NO_RELAY multiple
Actually, that should probably be bounded to somet
not scored yet:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20150926-r1705400-n/__HAS_NO_RELAY/detail
tflags __L_X_NO_RELAY multiple
meta MULTIPLE_X_NO_RELAY__L_X_NO_RELAY >= 8
If you're doing that, do TFLAGS multiple, maxhits=9
I'll add this to my sandbox.
--
John Hardin KA7
Can you use something like:
header __L_X_NO_RELAY exists:X-No-Relay
tflags __L_X_NO_RELAY multiple
meta MULTIPLE_X_NO_RELAY__L_X_NO_RELAY >= 8
describe MULTIPLE_X_NO_RELAYSaw an inordinate number of X-No-Relay: headers
score MULTIPLE_X_NO_RELAY 10.0
. If you're going to multiple that, do this:
header__HAS_NO_RELAYX-No-Relay =~ /^./
...which is in my sandbox, but just for eval, it's not scored yet:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20150926-r1705400-n/__HAS_NO_RELAY/detail
tflags __L_X_NO_RELAY multiple
meta
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Can you use something like:
header __L_X_NO_RELAY exists:X-No-Relay
tflags __L_X_NO_RELAY multiple
See also DUP_SUSP_HDR, which is in my sandbox but isn't performing well
enough against the corpora to get published:
http
.
>
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20150926-r1705400-n/__HAS_NO_RELAY/detail
>
>> tflags __L_X_NO_RELAYmultiple
>>
>> meta MULTIPLE_X_NO_RELAY __L_X_NO_RELAY >= 8
>
> If you're doing that, do TFLAGS multiple, maxhits=9
>
> I'll add
s? How about:
No, not empty. Typically they say:
X-No-Relay: not in my network
Yeah, multiples of that is what I was seeing too.
Memories are reviving. I don't think the tflags multiple for a
single-header rule will work, as SA collapses identical headers. It has to
be a header ALL rule. That's
On 4/21/2015 11:48 PM, David B Funk wrote:
I've got some home-grown rules that I trust to which have added
tflags autolearn_force
Recently I've seen some spam that hit those rules and racked up enough
points that they should have auto-learned. But the scoring analysis
explicitly says autolearn
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:48:46 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
is the autolearn_force being ignored because of the initial BAYES_00
score?
Yes, a Bayes point in the opposite direction prevents auto-training.
All the force flag does is override the 3+3 rule.
Is there a
I've got some home-grown rules that I trust to which have added
tflags autolearn_force
Recently I've seen some spam that hit those rules and racked up enough
points that they should have auto-learned. But the scoring analysis
explicitly says autolearn=no autolearn_force=no.
What's going on here
Hallo!
Back on topic :)
I happened to notice that 'tflags userconf' was specified for a few tests
that, as far as I could tell have on user configurable parameters.
Example (3.2.5):
25_spf.cf:tflags SPF_PASS nice userconf
So what 'user configuration' is needed
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:20:06 -0500 (EST)
Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
I happened to notice that 'tflags userconf' was specified for a few
tests that, as far as I could tell have on user configurable
parameters.
Example (3.2.5):
25_spf.cf:tflags SPF_PASS
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
I'm guessing it's also used to exclude rules from score optimization.
There is a comment in 25_spf.cf:
# these are userconf so that scores are set by hand
tflags SPF_PASS nice userconf net
tflags SPF_HELO_PASSnice userconf net
Ah. I
Jeremy Fairbrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
Can the tflags multiple setting be used with mimeheader rules? Or only with
header, body, rawbody, uri, and full tests?
Also, where can I find some further info on how tflags multiple should be used - perhaps
Hi all,
Can the tflags multiple setting be used with mimeheader rules? Or only with
header, body, rawbody, uri, and full tests?
Also, where can I find some further info on how tflags multiple should be used - perhaps with an example or two? I can't find
anything in the SpamAssassin wiki
28 matches
Mail list logo
