..
rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\.*style/si match
and:
rawbody STYLE_IN_BODY /\.*\/si not match?
given a message body:
...
...
garbage...
...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No multipart, no Mime, just straight html as a message
So, it basically boils down to my lack of knowledge that
dsbl died back in June, and was used from within
spamassassin. I'll admit it. I didn't know about it. My fault.
Todd
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
If dsbl has been down for awhile, since around June, why hasn't it
been removed from
Thu, 2008-09-25 at 11:41 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Todd Adamson wrote:
Would I be correct or incorrect that this will get updated
to our rules through sa-update. If this does get corrected,
what kind of time frame are we guessing at?
No idea here.
And in the short term, if we zero the
Would I be correct or incorrect that this will get updated
to our rules through sa-update. If this does get corrected,
what kind of time frame are we guessing at? And in the
short term, if we zero the score for RCVD_IN_DSBL, will that
properly disable the test?
Todd
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrot
I have been using spamassassin for close to three or four years now,
and love it dearly. With the move to version 3.x, we are supposed to
remove the independent drug rules because they were included in the
that version. I moved away from them many months ago, but it seems
that I am very slowl
Awhile ago, someone posted some rules that looked for botched spam attempts
that didn't properly place names/address in the to and subject lines.
I thought that I had the rules included, but I can't determine which rule
it should be.
Could anyone point me toward the rules that look for these botc
back up and
running.
Todd Adamson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
