On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:48:29PM -0700, jdow wrote: > >If you disable a rule it doesn't run. Period. When your eval is run > >it'll use a false result in place of a disabled rule. Thus is the rule is > >a required part of the meta (it's ANDed) then the meta will never fire. > >If it's an optional part of the meta (it's ORed) then the meta will fire > >if it goes on to evaluate true. > > That is a bad thing. And it also seems to be different from the original
Not really.
> version of SA I started with which supported META. (I started back with
> 2.20 something.) The wording back then suggested you could write a META
> rule with components scored zero so that they would not report but the
> META would still work. That behavior is depended upon for some of the
> SARE rule sets, it appears.
meta rules came out in 2.40, and those docs clearly state:
If you want to define a meta-rule, but do not want its individual sub-rules to
count towards the final score unless the entire meta-rule matches, give the
sub-rules names that start with '__' (two underscores). SpamAssassin will
ignore these for scoring.
That hasn't changed.
I'm not sure why everyone is going crazy about this. Absolutely nothing has
changed wrt how meta rules work. The only change is that now it's easier to
find out when there are "problems" with the meta rules.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Eighty percent of married men cheat in America. The rest cheat in Europe."
- Jackie Mason
pgpFJpbQgCpaO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
