This is a discussion on Re: URIBL_BLACK - SpamAssassin ; Kris Deugau writes: > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > Unlike regular score lines for non-existent rules (which are kind of > > ignored), the relative score adjustment depends on the rule to be > > defined before. > > > ...
Kris Deugau writes:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Unlike regular score lines for non-existent rules (which are kind of
> > ignored), the relative score adjustment depends on the rule to be
> > defined before.
> > Given your demo rule above,
> Nominally live, actually. I've had perfectly legitimate staff email
> hitting FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK. (I've created a meta rule instead to
> drop the score, and since then I've also added whitelist_from_rcvd rules
> for all of our office firewalls as well... but if it hits us, it could
> hit customer mail as well.)
> > you are distributing a custom channel. It
> > will work, if you rename the channel name to come after the stock
> > updates channel when sorting lexically.
> *shrug* It does; it's called zzsarules.vianet.ca. When I first
> created it, I *did* run into problems simply redefining scores at fixed
> values for rules in other rulesets which were, indeed, sorted *after* my
> local channel originally (don't recall the details ATM; pretty sure I
> posted here asking about it). Thus the "zz" prefix - but it still
> doesn't accept a score *adjustment*.
> I've isolated an example into a testable "ruleset"; try:
> # sa-update --channel zzsarules.deepnet.cx --nogpg
> (Single scoreadj.cf file, with the single rule
> "score FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK (-1)")
> Note I'm running 3.2.5 on all the machines using the live ruleset, but
> IIRC I first hit this problem with 3.2.4.
In this situation, I think the cleanest way to do it is to define a meta:
meta FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK_ADJUST (FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK)
score FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK_ADJUST -1
those are not dependent on the order in which they're defined in any