Re: Rule help needed

2006-09-13 Thread kavaXtreme
Man, I wish I'd tried asking my question here a LONG time ago. You guys have been so helpful! Thanks a ton! You rock! -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Rule-help-needed-tf2260084.html#a6287909 Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.

Re: Rule help needed

2006-09-13 Thread kavaXtreme
Thanks for your VERY helpful input. That's exactly the kind of stuff they don't tend to cover in a general overview of how to write rules, and exactly the kind of stuff I need to know. Unfortunately SpamAssassin is pretty hobbled on a Cpanel account on a shared server. I contacted the help desk t

Re: Rule help needed

2006-09-12 Thread jdow
From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 08:47:19PM -0700, jdow wrote: I've been contemplating that to a degree. It would be nice if I could use the standard rule paths and designate one extra directory for included rules from it. Then I could run, for a two user insta

Re: Rule help needed

2006-09-12 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 08:47:19PM -0700, jdow wrote: > I've been contemplating that to a degree. It would be nice if I could > use the standard rule paths and designate one extra directory for > included rules from it. Then I could run, for a two user installation, > a pair of spamd processes with

Re: Rule help needed

2006-09-12 Thread jdow
From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's also worth noting that allow_user_rules makes spamd less efficient, at a minimum because it has to rebuild all of the rule eval strings for every message. IMO, don't enable allow_user_rules unless you really need to do it. I've been contemplati

Re: Rule help needed

2006-09-12 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:24:37PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: > might discover and publish and exploit for. Keeping allow_user_rules off > protects you from future exploits in this area if you have untrusted users. It's also worth noting that allow_user_rules makes spamd less efficient, at a minim

Re: Rule help needed

2006-09-12 Thread Matt Kettler
Bowie Bailey wrote: > kavaXtreme wrote: > >> I've read and read and read till my mind feels like spaghetti puree. >> I'm really hoping someone here can help with my question. >> >> My main question is, why doesn't the following rule work: >> header ROMPE_BADRECIPS To =~ /(uucp|majordomo|ro

Re: Rule help needed

2006-09-12 Thread Loren Wilton
header ROMPE_BADRECIPS To =~ /(uucp|majordomo|root)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i Bowie has answered your questions. A couple of comments on the regex above. You should be using (?: instead of just ( to introduce the group. Without the ?: it is a capturing group that will capture the text found.

RE: Rule help needed

2006-09-12 Thread Bowie Bailey
Bowie Bailey wrote: > kavaXtreme wrote: > > I've read and read and read till my mind feels like spaghetti puree. > > I'm really hoping someone here can help with my question. > > > > My main question is, why doesn't the following rule work: > > header ROMPE_BADRECIPS To =~ > > /(uucp|majordo

RE: Rule help needed

2006-09-12 Thread Bowie Bailey
kavaXtreme wrote: > I've read and read and read till my mind feels like spaghetti puree. > I'm really hoping someone here can help with my question. > > My main question is, why doesn't the following rule work: > header ROMPE_BADRECIPS To =~ /(uucp|majordomo|root)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i > score