On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:43:15 -0500, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 04:33 PM 12/8/2003, David B Funk wrote: > >Small enhancement suggestion, modify each one of those '\W' with '?' > >thus making successive obfuscating characters optional. With your > >rule there -must- be an obfuscating between each regular character, > >with the '?', it will catch all permutations of normal and obfuscating > >characters. > > > Or *, to catch more than one obfuscating character.. > > ie: V...i..a.gr..a > > As I suggested in my email, there's lots of combinations that spammers > can do to avoid the original rule. There's also lots of ways to > construct the rule to get a broader hit-base, at the expense of > greater processing time. > In theory, this isn't that much additional matching time, especially with an automata. In practice though, these sorts of rules will kill performance because Perl cannot apply the literal optimization, especially if they're applied widely. (There's more than just Vxxxxx -- most of the phrase rules need this sort of treatment.) Scott ------------------------------------------------------- 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
