Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dave-sa@pooserville.com
 designates 69.26.223.253 as permitted sender)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:54:55 -0600
Subject: Re: BAYES_999 strange behavior
From: Dave Pooser <dave-sa@pooserville.com>
To: <users@spamassassin.apache.org>
Message-ID: <CF293F18.FF8A6%dave-sa@pooserville.com>
Thread-Topic: BAYES_999 strange behavior
In-Reply-To: <CF293DCC.FF898%dave-sa@pooserville.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

>It would make my life a lot easier if instead BAYES_999 were an additional
>rule.

That is, if BAYES_999 fired *in addition to* BAYES_99.

> I use several meta rules that include BAYES_99 and now I'm having to
>go rewrite those rules to include (BAYES_99 || BAYES_999).

Which raises the question-- is there a performance hit for making meta
rules include other meta rules? That is:

is
meta	_DP_BAYES_VBAD	(BAYES_99 || BAYES_999)
meta	DP_FRM_INFO_BAYES_VBD   DP_FRM_INFO && _DP_BAYES_VBAD

any worse from a performance standpoint than

meta	DP_FRM_INFO_BAYES_VBD   DP_FRM_INFO && (BAYES_99 || BAYES_999)

under normal conditions?

-- 
Dave Pooser
Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com
"...Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece, but to slide across the
finish line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, and
shouting GERONIMO!!!" -- Bill McKenna