On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Charles Tassell wrote:
> I wonder if a better way to do this would be to add an extra field to
> the rule (or maybe change BODY to BODY_STRIPPED or HEADER_STRIPPED)
> which removes everything that is *not* a letter before doing the regexp
> check. IE, does a s/[^a-zA-Z]//g) on
I wonder if a better way to do this would be to add an extra field to
the rule (or maybe change BODY to BODY_STRIPPED or HEADER_STRIPPED)
which removes everything that is *not* a letter before doing the regexp
check. IE, does a s/[^a-zA-Z]//g) on the body/header before checking
the rule. I can't
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Would something like "excessive" instances of /(\w)\1/ work?
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Which leads back to the request I made
previously for a mechanism to COUNT the number of occurences of a match,
for 'excessive' use of something that is legitim
Roger Merchberger wrote:
Rumor has it that Charles Gregory may have mentioned these words:
[snippety]
Rule:
BODY RULENAME /a string/i
Coded Rule:
BODY RULENAME /a{1,3} s{1,3}t{1,3}r{1,3}i{1,3}n{1,3}g{1,3}/i
You get the idea. This could be quite burdensome to implement manually,
but an easy enough
Rumor has it that Charles Gregory may have mentioned these words:
[snippety]
Rule:
BODY RULENAME /a string/i
Coded Rule:
BODY RULENAME /a{1,3} s{1,3}t{1,3}r{1,3}i{1,3}n{1,3}g{1,3}/i
You get the idea. This could be quite burdensome to implement manually,
but an easy enough thing to automate 'behind
There is a ruleset that has been in testing for some time now. It basically
rocks. That is all I can say. It will be released soon. It will take care of
this kind of stuff. It has some FPs that are being worked out. Almost ready
:)
The creativity of people on this list never ceases to amaze me.
