You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com> on 2005/07/10 07:12:40 UTC
mass-checks flux redux
I propose we start over with the rules unzeroed (not a massively
significant change, but I think it is helpful) and Michael's reuse patch
so messages without X-Spam-Status will have non-realtime results (a more
significant change). Please vote on this and we'll repeat the process.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
Re: mass-checks flux redux
Posted by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>.
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>I propose we start over with the rules unzeroed (not a massively
>significant change, but I think it is helpful) and Michael's reuse patch
>so messages without X-Spam-Status will have non-realtime results (a more
>significant change). Please vote on this and we'll repeat the process.
>
>
Since I pretty much proposed the same thing the other day, I'm +1.
4461 needs one more official +1.
I think 4460 might be important, it hits a lot of things that it should
not hit in my corpus. However, I'm afraid that Justin's fix is going to
miss somethings it should catch, but maybe that is incidental vs fixing
what it is catching now.
Michael
Re: mass-checks flux redux
Posted by Henry Stern <he...@stern.ca>.
+1
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> I propose we start over with the rules unzeroed (not a massively
> significant change, but I think it is helpful) and Michael's reuse patch
> so messages without X-Spam-Status will have non-realtime results (a more
> significant change). Please vote on this and we'll repeat the process.
>
> Daniel
>
Re: mass-checks flux redux
Posted by Duncan Findlay <du...@debian.org>.
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:12:40PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> I propose we start over with the rules unzeroed (not a massively
> significant change, but I think it is helpful) and Michael's reuse patch
> so messages without X-Spam-Status will have non-realtime results (a more
> significant change). Please vote on this and we'll repeat the process.
+1 on redoing once these changes are made, not on the patch itself
which I have not reviewed.
--
Duncan Findlay