Re: tons of T_* rules in 72_active.cf

On 2011-11-07 15:52, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 11/7/2011 8:44 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Axb wrote:
>>
>>> Can't figure out why they they get published with a T_* in
>>> 72_active.cf when the original rules don't have them.
>>> Would someone pls clue me in?
>>
>> A manually-named T_ rule is for testing.
>>
>> The T_ added by masscheck-rescore means "not performing well enough to
>> publish".
>>
>> Those rules shouldn't appear in 72_active.cf
> I'm not seeing this issue on trunk with the 1195874 rules. Can you be
> more specific?

ignore - "mental hiccup"

• This message: [ Message body ]
• Next message: bugzilla-daemon_at_nospam: "[Bug 5647] spamcop reports truncation differennt than at spamcop.net"
• Previous message: bugzilla-daemon_at_nospam: "[Bug 5238] making spamc capable to request local only check"
• In reply to: Kevin A. McGrail: "Re: tons of T_* rules in 72_active.cf"

• Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]