On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 1:29 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
is there any estimate on how often should we expect any updates to it?
On 31.12.20 15:22, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I typically make multiple changes on every business day. Some of those
changes are to an RBL that we will likely ena
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 1:29 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> is there any estimate on how often should we expect any updates to it?
Hi Matus,
I typically make multiple changes on every business day. Some of those
changes are to an RBL that we will likely enable by default. We're also
work
if you are using RH based Linux distros, just put the attached
configuration file under /etc/mail/spamassassin/channels.d/
On 12/14/2020 1:27 PM, AJ Weber wrote:
Apologies for the naive question; I'm running CentOS 7, SA 3.4.3.
I don't have that channels.d directory by default. I've been
r
On 12/14/2020 1:27 PM, AJ Weber wrote:
if you are using RH based Linux distros, just put the attached configuration file
under /etc/mail/spamassassin/channels.d/
Apologies for the naive question; I'm running CentOS 7, SA 3.4.3. I don't have
that channels.d directory by default. I've been
On 12/14/20 7:27 PM, AJ Weber wrote:
>
>> if you are using RH based Linux distros, just put the attached configuration
>> file under /etc/mail/spamassassin/channels.d/
>
> Apologies for the naive question; I'm running CentOS 7, SA 3.4.3. I don't
> have that channels.d directory by default. I
if you are using RH based Linux distros, just put the attached configuration
file under /etc/mail/spamassassin/channels.d/
Apologies for the naive question; I'm running CentOS 7, SA 3.4.3. I
don't have that channels.d directory by default. I've been running a
more traditional cron updat
Hello,
On 26.11.20 11:22, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I wanted to share the news from https://mcgrail.com/newsmanager/news_article.cgi?template=news.template&news_id=11
with you all. We'll also have a mailing list up soon too.
Thanks to the sponsors and to Georgia Smith and Karsten Bräckelmann
who
On 26 Nov 2020, at 09:22, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Announcing the Apache SpamAssassin Channel for the KAM Rule Set
Excellent and most welcome news!
--
They looked at the drinks.
They drank the drinks.
On 11/26/20 5:22 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
[...]
> The KAM rule set is authored by Kevin A. McGrail with contributions from Joe
> Quinn, Karsten Bräckelmann, Bill Cole, and Giovanni Bechis. It is maintained
> by The McGrail Foundation.
>
> The KAM channel is made possible with
l. We'll also have a mailing list up soon too.
> Thanks to the sponsors and to Georgia Smith and Karsten Bräckelmann who
> worked hard on setting up the infrastructure for this.
>
> Happy Thanksgiving,
> KAM
>
>
> Announcing the Apache SpamAssassin Channel for the K
ng up the infrastructure for this.
Happy Thanksgiving,
KAM
Announcing the Apache SpamAssassin Channel for the KAM Rule Set
Nov 26, 2020
Happy Thanksgiving,
The McGrail Foundation is proud to announce the immediate availability
of the channel for the KAM rule set.
The rule set has been free and
rawbody BLOCK_RULE2 /(\W|^)Orange(\W|^)/i
Some good suggestions here already. While your original regexp should
have worked in most cases, the optimal regexp for this situation is:
/\borange\b/i
And probably body, not rawbody. Rawbody won't match if the spammer
obfuscates words with
On 4/17/2012 8:03 AM, dhanushka ranasinghe wrote:
> Hi.. guys
>
> i have following rule in place in spamassassin,
>
> rawbody BLOCK_RULE2 /(\W|^)Orange(\W|^)/i
> score BLOCK_RULE2 50
> describe BLOCK_RULE2 Bad Word
>
> but one of my mails got blocked even-though its doesn't have word
> "Orange" ,
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 15:18 +0200, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> > /\borange\b/i is what I'd use.
> >
>
I should have added that the latest versions of grep understand Perl
regex syntax, which can be useful for rapidly checking regexes before
writing an SA rule. The main difference is that the regex shoul
On 17/04/2012 15:15, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 14:39 +0200, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
Indeed, and /^Orange$/i will only match Orange if it is the entire line.
In fact, as SA converts each paragraph into one long line in body rules,
it will only match a paragraph containing just the w
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 14:39 +0200, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> On 17/04/2012 14:18, dhanushka ranasinghe wrote:
> > Hi.. guys..
> >
> > I don't think regex is the issue , i tested the /(\W|^)Orange(\W|^)/i
> > its correctly doing the exact word match
> >
> >
> > Thank You
> > Dhanushka
> >
>
> Firstly,
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:39:41 +0200
Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> On 17/04/2012 14:18, dhanushka ranasinghe wrote:
> > Hi.. guys..
> >
> > I don't think regex is the issue , i tested
> > the /(\W|^)Orange(\W|^)/i its correctly doing the exact word match
> >
> >
> > Thank You
> > Dhanushka
> >
>
> Firstly,
On 17/04/2012 14:18, dhanushka ranasinghe wrote:
Hi.. guys..
I don't think regex is the issue , i tested the /(\W|^)Orange(\W|^)/i
its correctly doing the exact word match
Thank You
Dhanushka
Firstly, please do not "top post"
Secondly, I disagree with you completely.
The ^ (carat) ind
Try testing below rules, if you are trying to flag the mails containing the
exact 'orange' word only and not other such as orangecat.
Rest will depend upon requirement.
Thanks,
Swati
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:48 PM, dhanushka ranasinghe <
parakrama1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi.. guys..
>
> I don'
Hi.. guys..
I don't think regex is the issue , i tested the /(\W|^)Orange(\W|^)/i
its correctly doing the exact word match
Thank You
Dhanushka
On 17 April 2012 17:44, Swati R wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Tom Kinghorn
> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/04/2012 14:03, dhanushka ranasinghe wr
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> On 17/04/2012 14:03, dhanushka ranasinghe wrote:
>
>>
>> Any idea why this is happening ?
>>
>> Thank You
>> Dhanushka
>>
>>
> Try
>
> /^Orange$/i
>
> The $ specifies end of the word.
>
> Regards
> Tom
>
I think, this should work :
/\bOrang
On 17/04/2012 14:03, dhanushka ranasinghe wrote:
Any idea why this is happening ?
Thank You
Dhanushka
Try
/^Orange$/i
The $ specifies end of the word.
Regards
Tom
Hi.. guys
i have following rule in place in spamassassin,
rawbody BLOCK_RULE2 /(\W|^)Orange(\W|^)/i
score BLOCK_RULE2 50
describe BLOCK_RULE2 Bad Word
but one of my mails got blocked even-though its doesn't have word
"Orange" , but when search via the mail spamassassin show mail has
word Orang
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/05/2009 03:52 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 15:44 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 10/05/2009 02:53 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Well, the Sought rule-set (and thus Fraud sub-set) is being
> > re-
On 10/05/2009 03:52 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 15:44 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/05/2009 02:53 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Well, the Sought rule-set (and thus Fraud sub-set) is being re-generated
every 4 hours -- with an exception of night-time, UTC
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 15:44 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 10/05/2009 02:53 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Well, the Sought rule-set (and thus Fraud sub-set) is being re-generated
> > every 4 hours -- with an exception of night-time, UTC.
> They are really being gener
ought rule-set needs to be
updated using sa-update frequently, preferably more than once a day.
How often should I be running sa-update to pick up SOUGHT. I currently
run it automatically once a day, and ad-hoc whenever I tweak any other
rules. Should I run 4 times/day? 6? Inquiring minds want to
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 13:30 -0500, McDonald, Dan wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 20:17 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Just a minor nit, in case it isn't just different terminology. Installed
> > sounds like a one-time operation -- the Sought rule-set needs to be
> &g
John GALLET wrote:
Re,
Anyway, these are the patterns I tried to code in FR_SPAMISLEGAL and
FR_HOWTOUNSUBSCRIBE, plus one I considered too generic (if you can't
read this mail in html, click here).
It might be worth collecting more ham that includes any such common
text -- or even _generating
John Wilcock writes:
> Justin Mason a écrit :
> > John GALLET writes:
> >> Well, thanks for writing it. I think its main weak point for French and
> >> other accented languages is handling the different encodings for a same
> >> char with an accent, some kind of "synonyms" list. The same letter,
Justin Mason a écrit :
John GALLET writes:
Well, thanks for writing it. I think its main weak point for French and
other accented languages is handling the different encodings for a same
char with an accent, some kind of "synonyms" list. The same letter, say "a
with an accent", can be misspell
d to do so", so I added a
> higher score. Now it might perfectly be faulty logic, I do not have any
> experience in spam fighting.
Well, with automated rule-set generation I would advise erring on the
side of "no false positives" -- my experience with FPs is that they
may appear t
Re,
Anyway, these are the patterns I tried to code in FR_SPAMISLEGAL and
FR_HOWTOUNSUBSCRIBE, plus one I considered too generic (if you can't
read this mail in html, click here).
It might be worth collecting more ham that includes any such common
text -- or even _generating_ mails along those
John GALLET writes:
> Hi,
>
> > You run "seek-phrases-in-corpus" over the 2 corpora, and it'll spit out
> > the patterns; you can then write rules based on these.
>
> I did so, the results are interesting, though I do not really know where
> to go from there. If I take the first 50 "best" patte
John GALLET a écrit :
I think I have a newbye simple problem of philosophy/strategy: my
approach, for what it's worth, was that I flag anything that contains
some unsubscribe links and French law reminders because anyway all the
ones I receive are spam, and I add the opt-in mailing/newsletter I
Hi,
If these are hit rates with a very minimal daily corpus, don't know if the
present ruleset is ready for production unless you have 0 tolerance for any
bulk, period
I'm afraid I must agree. I don't have a confirmed and sorted corpus per se,
but after a single night's live testing with ver
On Dienstag, 24. Juni 2008 John Wilcock wrote:
> with just a bit of fine tuning
I guess John Gallet needs a bigger corpus, maybe you could share some
ham/spam with him. He does the work to create the rules, and with
better corpus the rules will become better. I know this, I maintain the
GERMAN
Yet Another Ninja a écrit :
If these are hit rates with a very minimal daily corpus, don't know if
the present ruleset is ready for production unless you have 0 tolerance
for any bulk, period
I'm afraid I must agree. I don't have a confirmed and sorted corpus per
se, but after a single night'
Re,
I excluded the last two rules from my masscheck to avoid FPs as these
ESPs/X-Mailers are definitely grey, "import rcpt list and blast" sort of ESPs
not black for global use.
If you can point me to some more information on how to do that, on-list or
off-list, I am interested. I am new to
Hi,
You run "seek-phrases-in-corpus" over the 2 corpora, and it'll spit out
the patterns; you can then write rules based on these.
I did so, the results are interesting, though I do not really know where
to go from there. If I take the first 50 "best" patterns and strip off the
obvious stand
On 6/23/2008 4:36 PM, John GALLET wrote:
Hi,
First of all, thanks to Justin for patiently helping me to install
mass-check and pointing me in the right direction. I will try to run the
algorithms tonight to see what they come up with.
In the meantime, you can find a hit-frequencies report at
Thanks for taking this burden upon yourself. One other thing you should be
prepared to do, if you're willing to devote long-term responsibility to these
rules, is to provide sa-update-compatible feeds of your dynamic rules. This
is another thing that Justin can probably help you with.
I am hap
Re,
Looking at the rules, I'm worried about false positives on genuine opt-in
advertising. I have a number of users who choose to receive all kinds of
advertising blurb,
This is one of the reasons why I did not hunt for "click here" and "if you
can't see this email in html". Now correct me i
John GALLET a écrit :
Any feedback on the results (not enough in corpus, bad rules, good
rules, etc.) appreciated.
Looking at the rules, I'm worried about false positives on genuine
opt-in advertising. I have a number of users who choose to receive all
kinds of advertising blurb, so I'll run
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, John GALLET wrote:
First of all, thanks to Justin for patiently helping me to install
mass-check and pointing me in the right direction.
Applause for Justin! This is the sort of thing we need to see for many
more specialized spam categories...
I will try to run the alg
Hi,
First of all, thanks to Justin for patiently helping me to install
mass-check and pointing me in the right direction. I will try to run the
algorithms tonight to see what they come up with.
In the meantime, you can find a hit-frequencies report at:
http://www.saphirtech.fr/spam/freqs_2008
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:49 PM
> > To: Giampaolo Tomassoni
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> > Subject:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:49 PM
> To: Giampaolo Tomassoni
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Rule Set proposal] French Rules
>
> ...omissis...
>
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:28 PM
> > To: Giampaolo Tomassoni
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> > Subject:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:28 PM
> To: Giampaolo Tomassoni
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Rule Set proposal] French Rules
>
>
>
Giampaolo Tomassoni writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:10 PM
> > To: John GALLET
> > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Rule Set propos
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:10 PM
> To: John GALLET
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Rule Set proposal] French Rules
>
> ...omissis...
>
> by the way, if you&
I still miss samples for two rules, even if I did had hits according to
/var/spool/maillog I did not save them.
I added a sample for the FR_NOTSPAM rule, and I removed the
FR_YOURELUCKY rule as I see other forms of the text getting through so
it is not efficient. On the other hand, nearly al
John GALLET writes:
> Hi,
>
> This is my first post on this list and first ruleset, so please point me
> to the right place/documents if I am doing anything wrong.
>
> According to a search of this list on markmail.org, there have been few
> subjects about spam in French and (no disrespect mea
Hi,
I was able to access the URL you mentioned, but not all of the files
below it. I received:
"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /spam/FR_PAYLESSTAXES.txt on this server."
Sorry guys, only the ruleset file (the one I tried, of course) was
readable, all the non empty spam samples
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, John GALLET
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is my first post on this list and first ruleset, so please point me to
> the right place/documents if I am doing anything wrong.
>
> According to a search of this list on markmail.org, there have been few
> subj
Hi,
This is my first post on this list and first ruleset, so please point me
to the right place/documents if I am doing anything wrong.
According to a search of this list on markmail.org, there have been few
subjects about spam in French and (no disrespect meant) I would agree with
the comme
Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> this mail list have enorm spams on it, seams that no one cares to
> kill it at maillist server level, hmm, does spammers sponcer this
> maillist ? :-)
Huh? I don't filter this list and I haven't seen any spam.
--
Bowie
On Tue, October 17, 2006 18:55, jdow wrote:
> to subtract even more points to offset various rules that trigger
> on patches, source listings, and oops dumps.)
this mail list have enorm spams on it, seams that no one cares to kill it at
maillist server level, hmm, does spammers sponcer this mail
ls
3.0 BAYES_95 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 95 to 99%
[score: 0.9771]
0.0 JD_VHI_BAYES JD_VHI_BAYES
0.0 JD_HI_BAYESJD_HI_BAYES
3.8 JD_HI_BAYES_LKML LKML likely spam
2.0 JD_VHI_BAYES_LKML LKML very likely spam
Which rule set ar
> of 7.3:
> -1.5 JD_SENDER_RELAYGood list with Sender header
> 0.0 DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME Domain Keys: policy says domain signs some
> mails
> 3.0 BAYES_95 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 95 to 99%
> [score: 0.9771]
> 0.0
At 11:56 PM 12/14/2005, Gene Heskett wrote:
Bingo! So I'm not the only one with this &^%$#@@* problem.
Now the question is, what the heck can we do about it?
That's NOT a problem. It's normal. SA *has* to start up in set 0, because
it hasn't parsed your config files yet!
Gene Heskett wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:56:33 -0500:
> >> c:\>spamassassin -D --lint
> >[15643] dbg: config: using "/root/.spamassassin" for user state dir
>
> Bingo! So I'm not the only one with this &^%$#@@* problem.
Y
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 13:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
>Clay Davis wrote:
>> When I lint my rules the output tells me that it chose rule set 0.
>>
>> c:\>spamassassin -D --lint
>> debug: SpamAssassin version 3.0.2
>> debug: Score set 0 chosen.
Clay Davis wrote:
> When I lint my rules the output tells me that it chose rule set 0.
>
> c:\>spamassassin -D --lint
> debug: SpamAssassin version 3.0.2
> debug: Score set 0 chosen.
> debug: running in taint mode? no
> .
> .
> .
>
> Does this mean that I a
Kai,
Thanks, you were right. Score set 3 later...
Re,
Clay
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/14/2005 9:31:19 am >>>
Clay Davis wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:46:46 -0500:
> Does this mean that I am not running Bayes or Network tests? The
spam
> I am catching shows that the Bayes
> rules are firing...
Clay Davis wrote on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:46:46 -0500:
> Does this mean that I am not running Bayes or Network tests? The spam
> I am catching shows that the Bayes
> rules are firing...
Another score set may be chosen later. Check the whole debug output.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get
When I lint my rules the output tells me that it chose rule set 0.
c:\>spamassassin -D --lint
debug: SpamAssassin version 3.0.2
debug: Score set 0 chosen.
debug: running in taint mode? no
.
.
.
Does this mean that I am not running Bayes or Network tests? The spam I am
catching shows that
At 06:59 PM 5.12.2005 -0700, Robert Menschel wrote:
>Hello Jack, Chris,
>
>Thursday, May 12, 2005, 8:46:40 AM, you wrote:
>
>JLS> At 09:19 AM 5.12.2005 +0100, Chris Russell wrote:
>>>Trying to Update this morning gives:
>>>Lint output: warning: description exists for non-existent rule
>JLS> SARE_OB
Hello Jack, Chris,
Thursday, May 12, 2005, 8:46:40 AM, you wrote:
JLS> At 09:19 AM 5.12.2005 +0100, Chris Russell wrote:
>>Trying to Update this morning gives:
>>Lint output: warning: description exists for non-existent rule
JLS> SARE_OBFU_SPL_ORDERING
>>lint: 1 issues detected. please rerun wit
At 09:23 AM 5.12.2005 -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
>> Am running FBSD-4.11 and SA-3.03_3
>> I find that same problem. Also, when I open the rule with an editor, I see
>> the file is filled with those DOS carriage returns - ^M
>>
>> When I remove them, then the --lint sees 9 problems.
>
>Strange. SA
> Am running FBSD-4.11 and SA-3.03_3
> I find that same problem. Also, when I open the rule with an editor, I see
> the file is filled with those DOS carriage returns - ^M
>
> When I remove them, then the --lint sees 9 problems.
Strange. SA normally doesn't care beans about dos CRs in the rules f
At 09:19 AM 5.12.2005 +0100, Chris Russell wrote:
>
>
>Trying to Update this morning gives:
>
>Lint output: warning: description exists for non-existent rule
SARE_OBFU_SPL_ORDERING
>lint: 1 issues detected. please rerun with debug enabled for more
information.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Chris
>
Am running FB
]
Sent: 12 May 2005 07:17
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: [SARE] obfu rule set update
RM> Monday, May 9, 2005, 11:30:36 AM, Devon wrote:
DH>> Many thanks to Bob on the recent SARE rules release. This caught
DH>> those HTML Table SPAMS!!!
RM> But I notice there was
RM> Monday, May 9, 2005, 11:30:36 AM, Devon wrote:
DH>> Many thanks to Bob on the recent SARE rules release. This
DH>> caught those HTML Table SPAMS!!!
RM> But I notice there was no description on those report lines. I'll
RM> have that fixed by the weekend.
With the help of several SARE mass-che
Indeed, coincidence. Grab the SARE rulesets that deal
with OEM stuff and Mortgage stuff.
Loren
- Original Message -
From:
Daniel Kaliel
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:08
AM
Subject: Rule Set
There are two
forms
There are two forms
of spam that we are getting a lot of and I wanted to know if anyone has already
developed a rule set to combat them. One says it is an OEM software vendor
and it lists of a ton of products and there prices. The other is in
offering low rates on mortgages. Maybe it was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anyone spot the deliberate mistake? :-(
Craig. - This time with the attachment.
-
Dear list,
I've got a few local rules which I use to supplement the basic SA
installation (3.0.2), but I don't really have a sizeable ham/spam corpus
to test them aga
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 08:00 am, Craig McLean wrote:
> Dear list,
> I've got a few local rules which I use to supplement the basic SA
> installation (3.0.2), but I don't really have a sizeable ham/spam corpus
> to test them against. Also, I'm aware that there will likely be some
> cross-over wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear list,
I've got a few local rules which I use to supplement the basic SA
installation (3.0.2), but I don't really have a sizeable ham/spam corpus
to test them against. Also, I'm aware that there will likely be some
cross-over with the SARE ruleset,
At 06:33 AM 2/18/2005, Chris Withers wrote:
> At 05:27 AM 2/17/2005, Chris Withers wrote:
>
>> I now only have TRIPWIRE ANTIDRUG EVILNUMBERS in my_rules_du_jour.
>> Are these still worth having? They don't seem to have been updated in
ages...
> Antidrug is likely to not be updated, I'm lacking tim
.
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:33 AM
Subject: Looking for rule set to combat loan offer spam
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 05:27 AM 2/17/2005, Chris Withers
.
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:33 AM
Subject: Looking for rule set to combat loan offer spam
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 05:27 AM 2/17/2005, Chris Withers
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 05:27 AM 2/17/2005, Chris Withers wrote:
I now only have TRIPWIRE ANTIDRUG EVILNUMBERS in my_rules_du_jour.
Are these still worth having? They don't seem to have been updated in
ages...
Antidrug is likely to not be updated, I'm lacking time to work on it.
It's also now a par
Rob
tried it and didn't break anything - use SA in conjunction with
MailScanner..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Robert Menschel wrote:
Just a quick announcement that SARE has published a new rule set, aimed
at identify spam by signs
Just a quick announcement that SARE has published a new rule set, aimed
at identify spam by signs found within URI links.
Information at http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#uri
File at http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_uri.cf
I'd appreciate it if someone who uses RDJ and/or is
86 matches
Mail list logo
