RE: [SAtalk] [RD] second weeds set

2003-11-20 Thread Regis Wilson
>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! -

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] second weeds set

2003-11-19 Thread Larry Gilson
> -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

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] second weeds set

2003-11-19 Thread jennifer
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,

RE: [SAtalk] [RD] second weeds set

2003-11-19 Thread Larry Gilson
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, the were not as effective as yours. I still don't like the lack of effeciency of multiple rules, the effectiveness can not be beat! Thanks, Larry > -O