>So, while I do not like the inefficiency of the iterations, the
>effectiveness on multiple levels is excellent. The only FPs I am seeing
>
I think you can see why we desperately need to try to get an accumlator
rule for spamassassin. Multiple rule hits add up, we need it!
-
> -Original Message-
> From: jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:45 PM
> To: 'Larry Gilson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] second weeds set
>
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I agree, it would be nice i
ember 19, 2003 7:41 PM
> To: 'jennifer'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] second weeds set
>
> Hey Jennifer,
>
> Just a quick note to let you know that I abondoned my effort to
> consolidate
> your rules. While they worked for the most part,
Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] [RD] second weeds set
>
>
> I added a second Weeds set. R. Menschel pointed out a FP in
> an email that he
I added a second Weeds set. R. Menschel pointed out a FP in an email
that he sent with a legitimate string of encoded text. If you would
like to limit the set a bit, you can use the "weeds two" set. I have
been testing it by running it in addition to the original set. This set
will miss a few i
