Jan Korger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Therefore I suggest adding a rule with a negative score assigned matching > spam reports in message bodies. This is especially usefull for SAtalk, > better than whitelisting as the latter one would also all spam sent to the > list address to pass. (This is true for the AWL as well.) Such a rule > would is not very likely ever to be found in a spam message unless > spammers do try hard to bypass SA.
I think that might be *way* too enticing for spammers. The solution is to just exempt SAtalk and other spam-related mailing lists from spam filtering. Anyway, the spam that Bob forwarded was going to be marked as spam no matter how you handled the SA headers! He said it was assigned a score of 42.5 when he originally received it. 42.5. There's a report in SA bugzilla regarding the problem of rule names and descriptions triggering on themselves. We should fix the few rules affected by this problem and add some checks to the regression testing done during "make test". Dan -- Daniel Quinlan Linux, open source, and http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ anti-spam consulting ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
