> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > >>so, change it to (+) 0.001. how likely is it to change ham to spam? > > > >the same chance, I'd say, for cases someone uses e.g. DKIM... > >That's why I search for different solution... > > > >Well, this was not the first time I'd like to clear effect of a rule if > >different rule(s) match.
On 14.10.08 12:17, John Hardin wrote: > You're using BAYES_99 as a poison pill rule, right? Well, no - that wsas just an example. However I met this one most often. > If you're not willing > to add enough fractional points to BAYES_99 to overcome SPF_PASS and other > similar rules, then why not do this: > > meta CANCEL_SPF_PASS SPF_PASS > score CANCEL_SPF_PASS 0.001 I thought of that, but I'd like to have score negate SPF_PASS even if that one changes... > Can we close this thread? if there's nothing more to say... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Nothing is fool-proof to a talented fool.
