On Thu, 30 May 2002 the voices made Theo Van Dinter write:
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 04:09:01PM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> > No no no... not making it a rule with a negative score, but making SA ignore
> > what looks like information another SA might have added.
>
> That's a job for your procmail filter. How does SA know what another SA
> put into the message? (it's all configurable you know)? The only thing
> you're guaranteed about are the message headers (not including Subject
> since it's configurable). ie: X-Spam-* ...
Yes, and an autoreply often include the old headers in the body (and sometimes
the whole, or top of the body)... meaning that you've got the names of the
rules there, names that the rules themselfs will match...
It isn't too complicated to find most of that and remove it, but instead of
messing with the body of messages I'd rather have SA not apply any rules to
what is an explaination/list of rules from SA.
There's no way that a spammer can take advantage of that in a way that makes
sense.
/Tony
--
# Per scientiam ad libertatem! // Through knowledge towards freedom! #
# Genom kunskap mot frihet! =*= (c) 1999-2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] =*= #
-- Random URL (3/8):
<URL: http://www.slashdot.org/ > Who's getting ./:ed today?
_______________________________________________________________
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
