wrote: > Ian FREISLICH schrieb:
>
> thanks for pointing this out. I forgot to mention this. Of course this
> is much more easy, but only works if you want to deny based on SA's
> result. If you want to tag the mail for further processing, you have to
> stick with the long version I posted, because defers in warn acl
> statements pass the control flow to the next acl statement.
Or, you can do as I do which is to set required_score to 30 or some
really high value where you're confident you won't have FPs and do
processing as you suggest on the values in between.
