http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3407
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-19 08:29 ------- As loren replied to the group, his comment was not added to this ticket, I'm quoting him below: Loren said: I suggest that to make this work that either SA or the rulsets designers need a way to categorize negative scoring tests, so that all of them can be run before other preemptive tests. Fred replies with: This functionality is already in the 3.0 series, it was required to force AWL to run at the very end of all other tests. I think now that the priorities have been added for tests, this might become a possibility in the future (3.x series?) It used to exsist in previous versions of SA but it was broken and removed. Now that the core has changed enough, it might be a good possibility again. This idea might be improved to stop scanning after SA has reached the autolearn score. Then again, the AWL would be impacted by the reduction in scores for some messages. That might turn in either direction, not sure of that outcome. A point that Loren made was to run negative scores before positive scores, and that made me think of another problem, how to deal with negative meta tests that are really just a combination of positive scoring tests? I have such meta to counter SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS && SORTED_RECIPS. Those are two positive scoring tests of 2.63, so this would need to be considered. Then another idea, what about negative meta tests that are combined positive meta tests? For example, if SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS && SORTED_RECIPS were both meta rules themselves, would my negative scoring rule be taken into consideration and how? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
