Re: [SAtalk] Re: Meta-tripwire idea

2004-01-30 Thread Matthew Trent
[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: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:06:41 -0800 > > ... > > >That

Re: [SAtalk] Re: Meta-tripwire idea

2004-01-29 Thread Fred
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

Re: [SAtalk] Re: Meta-tripwire idea

2004-01-29 Thread Dennis Davis
>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 rules hit. I suspect this is the pr

RE: [SAtalk] Re: Meta-tripwire idea

2004-01-28 Thread Colin A. Bartlett
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

RE: [SAtalk] Re: Meta-tripwire idea

2004-01-28 Thread Colin A. Bartlett
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