procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: formail treated as folder?

2006-07-11 21:39:27
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:52:56 -0700 Lev Lvovsky <lists2(_at_)sonous(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

On Jul 10, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Dallman Ross wrote:

* ^X-Spam-Status.*YES
* !^X-Spam-Status.*NO

Finally, your conditions seem silly to me.  Why have a condition that
says to look for a "YES", then have a second condition that says to
look for the absense of a "NO"?  I would think you could do the whole
thing with only one condition, better formulated.


yeah, me too - I slapped that together really quick - I found that  
the first rule failed some messages, but will revisit that after I  
fix this "problem".

Actually, If there are any conditions where a message may bypass
SpamAssassin it would end up meeting that combination of conditions. It
would not have an X-Spam-Status: Yes header so would fail that condition if
it were alone and would not be classified into the "probably spam" folder.
It would also NOT have an X-Spam-Status: NO header. It would pass that
condition thus counteracting the lack of a YES flag.

Why it bypassed SA or why it has neither header is up to the fine admin to
discover.

Gerald

____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list   Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>