Well, the code to add this sort of check would not be too difficult,
although you can never really know how well it will work until you
start testing various rule attempts on various corpuses.
Most of the code infrastructure is already there. If you feel like
hacking on it, look at the Perl 2.50
Greg Cirino said:
> We do the same thing with a similar setup, increased
> the value of username to varchar(100)
> and it works just fine.
>
> I have the same username on 3 different domains and
> all have separate prefs.
Would it be worthwhile modifying the README appropriately? Sounds like
I would like to request a feature in the next development cycle, that feature being
support for multi-hosting in SQL prefs, ie [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] are
different users and need different prefs.
thanks
---
This SF.net email
I'd like to setup some rules in my procmailrc so that I can just forward
false negatives (or positives) to david+spam/ham and have a rule that
runs it through sa-learn or razor-report. Is forwarding the message
going to mess it up in terms of how it is processed?
If it is, what's a better way
SA 2.5 had its first miss for me today. It was a 'you are watching this
thread' from The Edge website... OK they deserved it (there was no
'To:', it had faked Outlook when it clearly wasn't, etc.
By the time I caught it, there had been a couple of dozen of these
(active thread, presumably).
What's up with this loon?
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 19 15:51:25 2003
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 23043 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 15:51:25 -
Received: f
unsubscribe
The Web's Best Deals On Computers, Peripherals And More!
Click Here To Visit http://www.tigerdirect.com
Don't You Dare Pay More!
