Wednesday, December 3, 2003, 2:14:26 AM, David wrote: DBF> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Robert Menschel wrote:
>> The second rule then reverses that test, checking for the lack of a FROM >> header. (There may be a better way to do this -- anyone?) Results: >> >> RM_hx_from -- 45925s/16069h of 63136 corpus >> RM_hn_from -- 1136s / 0h of 63136 corpus DBF> SA has a special 'missing-match' syntax to detect missing headers. DBF> So to cretate your rule: DBF> header RM_hn_from From =~ /^UNSET$/ [if-unset: UNSET] DBF> describe RM_hn_from From header not found DBF> score RM_hn_from 1.00 Verified. The rule works, and captures exactly the same spam as my original rule. DBF> I do not know if it is any more efficient than the way that you did DBF> it, I just copied somthing that I found in one of the distributed DBF> rules. I don't know if it's more efficient either, but it avoids my rule's need for a predecessor rule to reverse. It's therefore more elegant. Thanks. Bob Menschel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
