On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 01:35 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Reducing the meta score to compensate indeed might be good. My thought
> was, to partially split up the score in case the meta doesn't match. I
> guess the word "casino" in either the Subject or (even stronger) From
> header might be worth at least 0.2 or something on its own.
>

Are there any published guidelines about setting scores?

> One note I missed earlier, regarding the quantifiers: Using unbounded
> quantifiers can and will be expensive. Wherever possible you should use
> bounds. So, rather than /.*/, using /.{0,20}/ with a suitable upper
> bound will prevent the RE from backtracking an entire mail. Similar for
> any occurrence of the + quantifier, of course.
>

Yes, that makes sense: long ago I implemented relatively regex handling
on an 8/16 bit box (6809 running Flex-09) so I have some idea of what
goes on during matching. Noted for a general trawl through my rule set.

> You can find more info than you ever want here:
> http://perldoc.perl.org/perlre.html
>

Bookmarked.

> The missing
> SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL though likely is simply because you don't have the
> Perl Mail::SPF module installed. If you do, it should start working
> out-of-the-box.
>

I'm certain that it would - if I can get it installed.

I downloaded the tarball from CPAN but the INSTALL instructions it
contains don't work because Module-Build.PM is missing. The Mail::SPF
INSTALL file says its tested against Perl 5.6 while I'm running 5.8.8
and I don't know enough Perl to understand whether this is significant.
Anyway, I have the 3rd edition of the Camel book on order, so I'll lay
off until I've read it rather than boring this list rigid.


Thanks for your help.


Martin