Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Cool, thanks. That is handling the messages I was after.. > > Nope... I jumped the gun here ... misreading the debug output. > > How does the scoring work with this setup? > > I've tried a number of combinations but I never see the meta rule get > hit.
A crap... I over looked your leading underscores on the first 2. But still one thing seems odd. With the syntax right (including overlooked underscores) I see in -D debug output, that the score is grabbed from the meta rule, but not from the other one that should be hitting. (first one) Or does the double underscore tell spama to ignore the rule unless its referenced in a meta rule?
