[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) SA Developers: PLEASE provide some method whereby end-users like me can implement header, body, and uri rules in user_prefs.
2) Can anyone run the spam below against a vanilla ruleset, 2.5[45] and/or 2.6, and let me know if this spam should have been caught under 2.54?
With 2.60-CVS from just before the freeze (nothing more's being done on rules p.t.):
P.s.: This is from a straight "rm ./spamassassin/rules/*; cvs -Pd; cd spamassassin; ./configure; make; make test; make install", after backing up the last version.
Didn't pick up any site rules in local.cf (used straight SA rules), I don't use 70_cvs_rules_under_test.cf; I've adjusted BAYES_99 upwards because it's such a strong indicator.
Stick at it, Bob!
Tony
-- Tony Earnshaw
Working to get a life
http://j-walk.com/blog/docs/conference.htm http://www.billy.demon.nl Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
