Fred wrote:
> Hrmm something is wrong here, I updated this file on 10/14/2005 the very
> first day I seen this sign. What date are you showing on your copy of the
> random file?
>
> I also updated this file this morning to increase the score for this rule
> but I forgot to change the last modifie
Title: Out of Office AutoReply: *SPAM* Re: Stupid spammer rule
Can we have this account removed from the
list...
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:47 PM
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: *SPAM* Re
Hrmm something is wrong here, I updated this file on 10/14/2005 the very
first day I seen this sign. What date are you showing on your copy of the
random file?
I also updated this file this morning to increase the score for this rule
but I forgot to change the last modified date and also forgot t
Currently 70_sare_random.cf is rather old and doesn't contain any rules for
these variants.
It's got %FROM_NAME, but not %NAME_FROM. It doesn't have anything close to
%NAME_TO.
Perhaps Fred Tarasevicius needs to make an update.
Adding NAME_FROM is easy:
header __RANDH_7B ALL =~ /%FROM_NAME/
ra
Are you using 70_sare_random.cf ?
70_sare_random.cf
Description: 70_sare_random.cf tries to detect common mis-fires on
bulk mail software. Many signs are found like: %RND_NUMBER, etc
Mike
Kenneth Porter wrote:
Been getting a few of these:
From: "{%NAME_FROM}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "{%NA
Been getting a few of these:
From: "{%NAME_FROM}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "{%NAME_TO}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Anyone have a rule to nuke them?
