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