We tend to be very vague on custom negative rules. Spammers are listening on this list. Most of it happens off list. really not much else we can do about it.
As for your example, it wouldn't seem like a good rule because the patch fixes this. So there is no way that it would differentiate ham from spam. It could go either way. Unless the patched version has a somewhat different version number. Then you might have something :) Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Kuentz (2) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 3:53 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE > > > There is always a lot of good talk here about different > methods for us to > rack up points on SPAM, but I usually don't see much about > identifying HAM > and applying negative points. I don't know if any one is > interested, but > Exchange 5.5 has a quirk in it where when you specify it to > send a message > as plain text, it will send it as a multi-part mime message > as both HTML and > plaintext, regardless. There is a fix listed in this link > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;222508 . Any body have any good ideas on how to combine this with MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE? If I'm reading this correctly, you should never get a plaintext only message from an Exchange 5.5 server unless you have applied this fix. Mike ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
