On Friday 07 November 2003 06:24 pm, Robert Menschel wrote:
> Or better: what if we specified in the rule a maximum score to accumulate
> to? Maybe something like:
>
> accumbody T_SAMPLE /(?:word1|word2|word3|word4|word5)/i,max=2.5
> describe T_SAMPLE Message has medical words frequently used
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Justin,
Friday, November 7, 2003, 10:19:15 AM, you wrote:
>>Many of us are finding we hit limits with simple regex rules. To me, an
>>accumulator eval for rules is the next logical step.
>>
>>Make sense?
JM> BTW, SpamAssassin originally start
Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, SpamAssassin originally started with accumulating rules. But I took
> it out, as it meant a long hammy mail had a much higher chance of FP'ing,
> due to containing more text.
The problem exists anyway, since long nonspam messages are more
likely to
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Justin Mason wrote:
> BTW, SpamAssassin originally started with accumulating rules. But I took
> it out, as it meant a long hammy mail had a much higher chance of FP'ing,
> due to containing more text.
>
> I'd be worried that accumulating hits would reintroduce the same
> prob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
>You know, the answer to this, is the answer to many questions. The solution
>is the much needed accumulator eval. Yes you can get some FPs on 3-5
>consonants. But what if you set this rule to only hit if 4+ hits were found
>of
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Re: 'random' character sets
>
>
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:58:59 -0800, Greg Webster <[EMAIL
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:58:59 -0800, Greg Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
posted to spamassassin-talk:
> A thought on spammers oft-used sets of 'random' character lists in
> emails...an example:
>
> gnqplleqhzblll
> u
> wfjmvfe upvxoi lwhm
> xqs
> flckwrtsmufx irwajksqsnw er wcfjgfmk jugxfq
H
