Message69959
| Author | nedds |
|---|---|
| Recipients | collinwinter, ctheune, nedds |
| Date | 2008-07-18.17:25:09 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.09586381 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1216401912.28.0.846521692059.issue3334@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I believe the problem was that in the case of this fix, rather than using set_prefix to give the new node the same prefix as before, new.prefix = was used. Here is the one line fix which preserves the prefix in the example given. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-07-18 17:25:13 | nedds | set | spambayes_score: 0.0958638 -> 0.09586381 recipients: + nedds, collinwinter, ctheune |
| 2008-07-18 17:25:12 | nedds | set | spambayes_score: 0.0958638 -> 0.0958638 messageid: <1216401912.28.0.846521692059.issue3334@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008-07-18 17:25:11 | nedds | link | issue3334 messages |
| 2008-07-18 17:25:10 | nedds | create | |