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
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
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
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
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
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
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