| David W. Tamkin vouchsafed ("vouchsaved"?) to utter:
|
| > [Of course,
| > it doesn't work that way: unless anothernumber is 0 (which would
| > cause an overflow), that condition is guaranteed to score 1 point
| > no matter.]
And I was wrong. It would score "anumber" no matter what. Weighted
greater-than tests score
w*(M/L)^x, and weighted less-than tests score w*(L/M)^x, where M is the size
of the search area and L is the number that the condition compares to. So I
was trying to say that if x=0, the power is 1, but the score is w.
Vayyikhtabh W. Dallman Ross,
| But why do you write
| "of course," when there seem to be such scant few who have an
| inkling about how it really is supposed to work?
It seemed to me to be a direct logical induction from the formulas in the man
page.
| > Well, I'm sorry, folks, but I don't see any weighted size
| > conditions in that man page where x=0 [. . . .]
| I don't know that anybody said the man pages had an x=0 example.
| What there is, is
|
| * -100^3 > 2000
|
| So, as you see, x=3. I just tried that, and I can get it to
| work, though I don't yet fully understand the mechanism.
How did you try it, and what happened that you call not getting it to work?
It should divide the size of the message by 2000, cube that, and subtract 100
times that much from the score. I cannot think of any reason one would want
to do such a thing, but that's what that condition would accomplish.
(When someone doesn't get me to work, it means I slept late and missed my
train.)
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail