Re: [SAtalk] BUG: Documentation wrong about sitewide/etc/mail/spamassassin/user_prefs.template

2002-03-09 Thread Scott Walde
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote: > If you delete one path, delete /etc/mail/spamassassin. I don't know what > distribution has /etc/mail and what software supports this, but Debian > certainly does not. (Wouldn't it be stupid to have an /etc/mail with just > spamassassin stuff in it?) w

[SAtalk] Re: Troubling new scores in 2.1 release

2002-02-28 Thread Scott Walde
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Shields wrote: > Craig R Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > this is that rules which are really non-discriminators end up sometimes getting > > odd-looking scores. For example, CYBER_FIRE_POWER is just not likely to really > > be worth -4.020 if looked at in isola

Re: [SAtalk] Re: Spammer's new ideas ...

2002-02-15 Thread Scott Walde
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Daniel Pittman wrote: > >> Actually, this raises an interesting issue with AWLs where it'll have > >> no way of knowing you're you and not someone else with whom you > >> regularly correspond, which is probably bad, because as you point > >> out, the spammer can easily say th

Re: [SAtalk] spamd log messages...

2002-02-07 Thread Scott Walde
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote: > Then all we need is a catchy nickname for my first release :) How about "SpamAssassin: Reduce your spam by 581%"? ttyl srw -- Walde TechnologyNetworks, Internet, Intranets Saskatoon, SK CANADA Linux Support, Web Programming

Re: [SAtalk] Suggestion for CALL_888

2002-02-04 Thread Scott Walde
On 4 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote: > Yeah, I just looked it up online: Sorry, hit send before I saw this. > I'll cover all of those prefixes in a single rule and rescore with the > GA. Please also notice: I'm looking for either '-'es or ' 'es in the phone number as the spam I got was in the fo

Re: [SAtalk] Suggestion for CALL_888

2002-02-04 Thread Scott Walde
skatoon, SK CANADA Linux Support, Web Programming 306-221-7393Network Security, Firewalls > On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 07:59, Scott Walde wrote: > > The following one got through. I changed CALL_888 to: > > > > body CALL_888 >/(?:call|dial).{1,15}8(?:88|77|66

[SAtalk] Suggestion for CALL_888

2002-02-04 Thread Scott Walde
The following one got through. I changed CALL_888 to: body CALL_888 /(?:call|dial).{1,15}8(?:88|77|66|55|44|33|22|11)[\-\s][\dA-Z]+[\-\s]?[\dA-Z]+/i (I suppose I could add '00' and lose the CALL_1_800 test, but 1-800 is scored higher than 888.) and it triggers now. The message still only sco