At 7/16/02 6:16 AM, Steven Stringham wrote: >A rule that says this "**************" and not "******" means that I >need one for everything in between?
No, the other way around; my example was: header contains "*****" AND header does not contain "**********" That would match anything that contains between 5 and 9 stars. You would only need one rule for each range -- the same number of rules that you would need to match on words like "probably". >The coding change is simple. Not a big deal at all. But, as an option, >where you can change the rating level, and the wording, why not? Well, you could say the same thing about a lot of possible additions. The answer is that multiple ways of doing the same thing makes code hard to manage, and each new feature increases the complexity of the system. If your originally requested feature was implemented in the code, with sliding logarithmic scales and whatnot, it would require additional config options, documentation, and so forth, and there would be people on the mailing lists saying they didn't understand how it worked, etc., etc. I'm not saying that the usefulness of such a feature might not be worth it if it adds something that can't be done any other way -- just that it's probably not worth it if the same thing can be done with the existing code, so I was suggesting ways that it might be possible to accomplish that. >I am just trying to get in the water here with my users. Any aid to >help them avoid some of this useless crap called spam. It is, in my >mind, something to get them into the idea. But, with this kind of >system, by using a sliding rating system, I can change the hit >threshold, and it will still work for the user with no rule >modifications. So, I can start with a high (or a low) threshold, and >then move it, and the users won't know the difference. Well, fair enough. It's a question of your audience; obviously you're in a different situation than someone who runs an ISP, for example, so what you say makes sense for the way you want to run it. >And the terms of agreement (on the disclaimer). I work for a law firm. >I am required by my boss to post that on all outgoing messages. So, take >that additional information accordingly. Yes, I know; I was just teasing you because you work for a company that thinks it's a good idea to put meaningless and unenforceable conditions on e-mail messages (even when they're plainly silly, such as confidentiality restrictions on messages sent to mailing lists), just because technology allows them to do so (if you want to see a puzzled look on your boss's face, ask him why they don't require the disclaimer to be added to phone calls you make). Not your fault. ------------------------------------ Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber - The world's fastest growing real-time communications platform! Don't just IM. Build it in! http://www.jabber.com/osdn/xim _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
