On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:16:43 -0400
Joe Quinn wrote:
> On 9/26/2016 8:54 AM, RW wrote:
> > Informational rules do that, but IIRC __RULES are simply a special
> > case.
> >
> Hmm, you're probably right on that point. I can't find anything in
> the source that behaves that way, but the documentatio
On 9/26/2016 8:54 AM, RW wrote:
Informational rules do that, but IIRC __RULES are simply a special
case.
Hmm, you're probably right on that point. I can't find anything in the
source that behaves that way, but the documentation claims that's how it
works and I also don't see anything to suppor
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 08:26:27 -0400
Joe Quinn wrote:
> On 9/25/2016 9:25 PM, Sean Greenslade wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 07:57:37PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> >> I think the rule still has a use, perhaps in a meta or something.
> > I believe (though don't quote me on this) that a zero-weight r
On 9/25/2016 9:25 PM, Sean Greenslade wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 07:57:37PM -0400, Alex wrote:
I think the rule still has a use, perhaps in a meta or something.
I believe (though don't quote me on this) that a zero-weight rule will
still be checked if it's used as part of a metarule.
--Sea
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 07:57:37PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> I think the rule still has a use, perhaps in a meta or something.
I believe (though don't quote me on this) that a zero-weight rule will
still be checked if it's used as part of a metarule.
--Sean
Hi,
> I had to add a rule weight for this rule to get it to trigger, so
> evidently the latest ML rules weights have disabled this rule.
>
> Anyway, this is what triggered it:
>
>>https://www.google.com/url?q=3Dhttps%=
>> 3A%2F%2Fglobal.gotomeetinA.com%2Fjoin%2F72626550
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 04:51:20PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Sean Greenslade
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:54:53PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> >> > If you want to see what that rule's code looks like, here's a link:
> >> >
> >> > https://fossies.org/dox/Mail-SpamAssa
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:52:57 -0700
jdow wrote:
> These days even mixed links, some https and some simple http, is
> suspicious.
There's nothing in this for a spammer, it's just a sign of carelessness.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Sean Greenslade
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:54:53PM -0400, Alex wrote:
>> > If you want to see what that rule's code looks like, here's a link:
>> >
>> > https://fossies.org/dox/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.1/classMail_1_1SpamAssassin_1_1Plugin_1_1HTTPSMismatch.ht
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:54:53PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> > If you want to see what that rule's code looks like, here's a link:
> >
> > https://fossies.org/dox/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.1/classMail_1_1SpamAssassin_1_1Plugin_1_1HTTPSMismatch.html
> >
> > It's possible there is a bug in that rule. If you s
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Sean Greenslade
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:39:20PM -0400, Alex wrote:
>> I think it must be something more than that. I've included the HTML
>> component of an FP I received, and I don't see any occurrences of an
>> https link where the text component
On 2016-09-25 12:39, Alex wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Sean Greenslade
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:12:00PM -0400, Alex wrote:
Hi, I'm seeing quite a few FPs with HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and its score
of 2.0. Isn't that kind of high for a rule that doesn't even have a
descript
Yeah, it should have a much higher score.
{O.O}
On 2016-09-25 12:12, Alex wrote:
Hi, I'm seeing quite a few FPs with HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and its score
of 2.0. Isn't that kind of high for a rule that doesn't even have a
description?
Can someone explain what the rule does, and consider whether i
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:39:20PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> I think it must be something more than that. I've included the HTML
> component of an FP I received, and I don't see any occurrences of an
> https link where the text component is just http, or even vice-versa.
>
> http://pastebin.com/BNM9sLR
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Sean Greenslade
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:12:00PM -0400, Alex wrote:
>> Hi, I'm seeing quite a few FPs with HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and its score
>> of 2.0. Isn't that kind of high for a rule that doesn't even have a
>> description?
>>
>> Can someone exp
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:12:00PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> Hi, I'm seeing quite a few FPs with HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and its score
> of 2.0. Isn't that kind of high for a rule that doesn't even have a
> description?
>
> Can someone explain what the rule does, and consider whether its score
> should be
16 matches
Mail list logo
