On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 06:07 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > The logic below just says (if the yes no feature is available). That > was added in 3.4. So the logic you are writing just says if I am > running 3.4, x otherwise y. > > The goal of the can was to write a different report that used a > special yes /no feature.
yes I know this, and it was working in 3.3, and it was afterall taken from the wiki, and worked *as desired* in 3.3, ahhh look forget it, im not gunna waste any more of my time on it, iv wiped it anyway and we are using a global custom regardless of yes/noimaybe or whatever else, its late, so IDGAF, its not performing as it did on previous versions, but i wont continue here any further since you think it aint a bug despite what I see here that shows a failure in how it used to operate. > Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> wrote: > > It worked perfectly with prior versions, only since upgrade to > 3.4.0 is it using the first " its not spam" option, when it is > spam (scores clearly show that), and not using the second *is* > spam segment like previous versions did correctly, no mater > I've wiped the test and will just force it report as spam > now.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
