[antispam-f] Re: Logged rule numbers
- From: Dave Barnett <as10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:17:38 +0100
In a recent message Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> In article <20087cade9a34f.Dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Dave Barnett <as10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> As reccommended on this list, I have put a rule "Delete Weight > 9" at
>> the top of my rules file. It works like a charm.
>> However, when checking the log this sometimes appears as "rule 2" and
>> sometimes as "rule 3". This seems to be independent of whether there
>> is a marked message action (rule 1) or not.
> That's possible. The 'Process Marked Message' rule is inserted as soon
> as there's something in the IDs file, even if there hasn't been any
> marking yet (the use of the IDs file has changed over time).
>> This is inconvenient if the logged rule number is used in a 'find'
>> search of the log. Of course, the rule itself can be used to search
>> instead.
>> I have attempted to define the circumstances that cause the change of
>> number without success, it may be associated with the 'Process'
>> button but I cannot be sure.
>> Is this a (minor) bug?
> Not as such. If these 'shifting numbers' are inconvenient, I suppose I
> could change the code so the program always inserts the 'Process Marked
> Message' rule.
Leave it alone until there is good reason to change that part of the
code. It does its job well and the best is the worst enemy of the
merely very good ;-)
--
Dave
Keep GMT all year
Other related posts: