RE: Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-18 Thread Chris Santerre
> >And as I said, the equivalent change log for this last update to the >header* files would have been close to 100 lines long. Is that what >you would like to see? Also note that SARE ninjas have to walk a fine line of giving out 'JUST' enough info on rule changes. Its a price we have to pay for

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-18 Thread George Georgalis
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 07:57:54PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: >Hello George, > >Thursday, February 17, 2005, 7:43:27 PM, you wrote: > >GG> I count approximately 35 active cf files in rulesemporium. Of course the >GG> changes aren't evenly distributed, but that's an average of 3 changes >GG> per

Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-18 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello George, Thursday, February 17, 2005, 7:43:27 PM, you wrote: GG> Hi Bob, >>And as I said, the equivalent change log for this last update to the >>header* files would have been close to 100 lines long. Is that what >>you would like to see? GG> I count approximately 35 active cf files in rul

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-18 Thread George Georgalis
Didn't realize this was a on list with my private reply On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 04:51:08PM -0600, Chris Thielen wrote: >George, > >>Maybe the way RDJ does the roll back needs be addressed? I know version >>2 is nearing release, and this wouldn't be difficult to add: It could >>check the cf fi

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-18 Thread George Georgalis
Hi Bob, On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:11:49PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: >Hello George, > >Thursday, February 17, 2005, 8:16:21 AM, you wrote: > >>>Fair enough. In this most recent publication of updates to the >>>70_sare_header*.cf family, 40 rules were added, and 50 rules were >>>moved from one

Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-18 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello George, Thursday, February 17, 2005, 8:16:21 AM, you wrote: >>Fair enough. In this most recent publication of updates to the >>70_sare_header*.cf family, 40 rules were added, and 50 rules were >>moved from one file to another, including 8 or 9 that were moved from >>various files to the ar

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-17 Thread Chris Thielen
George, Maybe the way RDJ does the roll back needs be addressed? I know version 2 is nearing release, and this wouldn't be difficult to add: It could check the cf file for a grep-able, commented, "this release" changes entry, which may include a rules.htm#ChangesVerX url. RDJ has always reporte

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-17 Thread George Georgalis
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:27:09PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: >Hello George, > >Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 9:38:41 PM, you wrote: > >GG> Even if someone doesn't use RDJ, isn't a 2-10 line commented change log >GG> in the cf file worthwhile? > >GG> RDJ is not just for people who want to submit

Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-17 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello George, Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 9:38:41 PM, you wrote: GG> Even if someone doesn't use RDJ, isn't a 2-10 line commented change log GG> in the cf file worthwhile? GG> RDJ is not just for people who want to submit full trust. It can also GG> be used to help automate distribution of ful

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-17 Thread George Georgalis
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 07:34:44PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: >Hello George, > >Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 7:06:16 PM, you wrote: > >>>GG> Rather than squelching custom site rules, I think it more >>>GG> appropriate to verbosely report why rules become obsoleted (not >>>GG> necessarily in the

Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-17 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello George, Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 7:06:16 PM, you wrote: >>GG> Rather than squelching custom site rules, I think it more >>GG> appropriate to verbosely report why rules become obsoleted (not >>GG> necessarily in the new ruleset). Maybe a changes file for each cf >>GG> file is appropriat

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-17 Thread George Georgalis
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 05:19:38PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: >Hello George, > >Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 7:02:58 AM, you wrote: > >GG> Rather than squelching custom site rules, I think it more >GG> appropriate to verbosely report why rules become obsoleted (not >GG> necessarily in the new r

Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-17 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello George, Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 7:02:58 AM, you wrote: >>GG> I had custom scores for them but they seem gone now... >>They've been archived -- moved to the 70_sare_header_arc.cf file. GG> okay next time I'll look at raising my rule count rather than GG> raising scores to block spam.

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-16 Thread George Georgalis
Hi, On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:03:14PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: >GG> Lint output: warning: score set for non-existent rule SARE_MSGID_IP >GG> warning: score set for non-existent rule SARE_TOCC_NONE >GG> lint: 2 issues detected. please rerun with debug enabled for more >information. > >GG>

Re: Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-16 Thread Justin Mason
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Menschel writes: > Hello George, > > Tuesday, February 15, 2005, 7:29:07 PM, you wrote: > > GG> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 02:26:02PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: > >>Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated. > >>Infor

Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-16 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello George, Tuesday, February 15, 2005, 7:29:07 PM, you wrote: GG> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 02:26:02PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: >>Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated. >>Information concerning these rules files can be found at >>http://www.rulesemporium.com/rul

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-16 Thread George Georgalis
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 02:26:02PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: >Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated. > >Information concerning these rules files can be found at >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#header > BTW - know anything about SARE_MSGID_IP and SARE_TOCC_N

Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-13 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello Jim, Saturday, February 12, 2005, 5:12:05 PM, you wrote: JK> danke für die Email vom 13.02.2005 um 00:48 JK> Robert Menschel schrieb - wrote: JK>>> is this only for SA 3.*? Or as well for 2.64? RM>> There is one file that does not apply to 2.64 JK> and which is it? I can`t see. Head to ht

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-13 Thread Jim Knuth
Hallo und guten Morgen Robert, danke für die Email vom 13.02.2005 um 00:48 Robert Menschel schrieb - wrote: JK>> is this only for SA 3.*? Or as well for 2.64? > There is one file that does not apply to 2.64 and which is it? I can`t see. -- Viele Grüße, Kind regards, Jim Knuth [EMAIL PROTE

Re[2]: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-12 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello Jim, Saturday, February 12, 2005, 2:57:06 PM, you wrote: JK> danke für die Email vom 12.02.2005 um 23:26 JK> Robert Menschel schrieb - wrote: >> Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated. >> Information concerning these rules files can be found at >> http://www.ru

Re: [SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-12 Thread Jim Knuth
Hallo und guten Abend Robert, danke für die Email vom 12.02.2005 um 23:26 Robert Menschel schrieb - wrote: > Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated. > Information concerning these rules files can be found at > http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#header is this on

[SARE] header rules updated

2005-02-12 Thread Robert Menschel
Just a quick note that SARE's header rules files have been updated. Information concerning these rules files can be found at http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#header Bob Menschel