On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 09:40:14PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote: > On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:39:28PM -0400, Don Bivens wrote: > > > > | For certain items, e.g. porn, I would like to send > > | these to /dev/null. > > > > :0 > > * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes > > * ^X-Spam-Status:.*PORN > > /dev/null > > > > (IOW, if it's spam and it triggered a porn rule, save it in the > > bit-bucket) > > > > Careful though, the PORN rules are just as likely (or even more > likely) to give false positives as many other rules. Be careful!
Right, his rule would only trigger if SA had already decided it was SPAM. So it's not *that* bad. I wonder how often you'd see PORN rules triggered in non-porn spam. That's the only problem, right? Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=osdntextlink _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
