> Ok, I just checked in a "fixed" version of Daniel's suggested > change. It's not > doing the adjustment-to-threshold-based-on-message length SO BE > WARY IF YOU'RE > IN THE HABIT OF USING CVS -- THIS CURRENT CODE MIGHT YIELD A > BUNCH OF FALSE > POSITIVES. It's somewhat unlikely, I think it's still a pretty > tight rule, but > be careful for a day or two.
Actually it seems harmless - unlike the old spam phrases stuff, there's still only one rule and PORN_3 has a score of 0.6, so it's not going to push too many things over the threshold. Perhaps after testing it might be good to have a separate LOTS_OF_PORN_3 rule that checks for a higher number... -- michael moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ "We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves to be like other people." -- Arthur Schopenhauer _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
