At 3:39 PM -0600 07/31/2013, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
At 3:23 AM +0200 07/25/2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
header LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECTeval:check_for_to_in_subject('user')
And all of them do hit that rule. A super-set of the ADDRESS variant,
using the local part instead of the complete ad
Hi all,
Since it's been a couple of weeks with no reply, I thought I
might ask this again. See below.
Do I need to file a bug for SA? Is this something obvious
that I'm missing? Does the LONGWORDS rule need an update?
It appears that LONGWORDS is failing to hit on the original
(server-
please, i know its been talked about before, but isnt there a rule to deal
with 1 word spams?
spams that just have text "Hi!" and thats it.
If not, if someone can pls advise on a regex to catch this.
Thank you.
>>> On 8/23/2013 at 3:42 AM, James Griffin wrote:
> !-- On Wed 21.Aug'13 at 14:51:56 BST, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> (uh...@fantomas.sk), wrote:
>
>> On 21.08.13 09:47, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> >I find a few of those 3 link (sudden craving for an IHOP breakfast spams,
>> >that contain mass quant
!-- On Wed 21.Aug'13 at 14:51:56 BST, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
(uh...@fantomas.sk), wrote:
> On 21.08.13 09:47, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> >I find a few of those 3 link (sudden craving for an IHOP breakfast spams,
> >that contain mass quantities of non printable text in the body. This
> >causes spa
