Karsten Bräckelmann a écrit : > Back on-list. > > On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 17:02 +0530, ram wrote: >> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 12:16 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: >>>>> score *_SURBL 0 >>>> I dont want that since that will cause a lint fail incase the rules are >>>> removed later >>> No, it won't, it lints just fine. >>> >>> # cat foo.cf >>> score NO_SUCH_RULE 0 >>> >>> # spamassassin --lint; echo $? >>> 0 >> $? is 0 alright. But you get a warning score set for a non existant >> rule > > That was a straight copy-n-paste. I don't see no warning, lint didn't > complain or output anything. > >> Unfortunately , when that happens I get alerts sent from my monitoring >> system. I will have to change all that > > Err, whatever. Even IF your watchdog would alert you -- I don't see the > SURBL rules to be removed from the stock rule set anytime soon, or > anytime at all for that matter. Why bother? > > If your watchdog is more strict than SA --lint itself, IMHO your > watchdog needs to be fixed. > >
and if he insists, he could use meta FOO_RULE (0)
