[THIS LIST HAS MOVED! see http://useast.spamassassin.org/lists.html .]On Tuesday 27
January 2004 09:11 am, Dennis Davis wrote:
> >From: Matthew Trent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [SAtalk] Re: Meta-tripwire idea
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Date: T
Matthew Trent wrote:
> John Wilcock wrote:
> That would also help with the problem of the report exceeding Exim's
header
> size limit when a ton of TW or BH rules hit.
I need to do more testing, here is the early results from my personal
corpus.
It appears with the current score, the rules are les
>From: Matthew Trent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [SAtalk] Re: Meta-tripwire idea
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:06:41 -0800
...
>That would also help with the problem of the report exceeding
>Exim's header size limit when a ton of TW or BH rule
Matthew Trent Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:07 AM
> That would also help with the problem of the report exceeding Exim's
header
> size limit when a ton of TW or BH rules hit.
Speaking of header limit... one of my users just upgraded to Office 2003 and
therefore Outlook 2003. He has a rule to
John Wilcock wrote:
> [This message doesn't seem to have made it to the list yesterday...
> Apologies if it ends up being distributed twice]
>
> It struck me that since individual tripwire rules are at risk of FPs,
> but that multiple tripwire hits on the same message are much less so,
> it might
Matthew Trent Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:07 AM
> That would also help with the problem of the report exceeding Exim's
header
> size limit when a ton of TW or BH rules hit.
Speaking of header limit... one of my users just upgraded to Office 2003 and
therefore Outlook 2003. He has a rule to
John Wilcock wrote:
> It struck me that since individual tripwire rules are at risk of FPs,
> but that multiple tripwire hits on the same message are much less so,
> it might be worthwhile assigning a significantly higher score to
> messages that hit lots of tripwire rules.
>
> Since there are so
