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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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>
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
