Wednesday, December 3, 2003, 2:14:26 AM, David wrote:
DBF> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Robert Menschel wrote:
>> The second rule then reverses that test, checking for the lack of a FROM
>> header. (There may be a better way to do this -- anyone?) Results:
>>
>> RM_hx_from -- 45925s/16069h of 63136 corpus
: [SAtalk] Problem with email=no content
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Robert Menschel wrote:
>
> > headerRM_hx_from exists:From
> > describe RM_hx_from From header found
> > score RM_hx_from 0.001
> > meta RM_hn_from !RM_hx_from
> > describe
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Robert Menschel wrote:
> headerRM_hx_from exists:From
> describe RM_hx_from From header found
> score RM_hx_from 0.001
> meta RM_hn_from !RM_hx_from
> describe RM_hn_from From header not found
> score RM_hn_from 1.00
>
> The first rule tests for the exi
Hello Andrea,
Thanks for the inspiration.
Tuesday, December 2, 2003, 4:23:24 AM, you wrote:
AR> Hi folks,
AR> How could I filter spam with no content?
AR> I've at the moment emails apparently without sender, without recips, without
AR> subject or body.
No sender? Given that information, I cre
Hi folks,
How could I filter spam with no content?
I've at the moment emails apparently without sender, without recips, without
subject or body.
An header for example:
Received: (qmail 7648 invoked by uid 1008); 2 Dec 2003 07:07:01 -
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by observe.nesys.it by ui
Hi folks,
How could I filter spam with no content?
I've at the moment emails apparently without sender, without recips, without
subject or body.
An header for example:
Received: (qmail 7648 invoked by uid 1008); 2 Dec 2003 07:07:01 -
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by observe.nesys.it by ui
