On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 20:28, Chris Santerre wrote: > Negative rules should be left off list. The lurkers eat them up :) > > The only way I know of to configure this is by procmail skipping email > larger then a certain size. But it has been a while since I looked at > that part of SA. Otherwise, a rule like this would be fine. > > (How long until we see a spammer add this code now?) > > --Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Stenglein, James C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] skip attachment scanning? > > > > Quick question for the list... > > > > Our users receive a lot of .doc attachments that seem to be > caught with various rules such as backhair. We have no > intention of removing the backhair tests though. Anyone know > of a simple way to skip attachment scanning or at least what > test to use to negate points if an attachment is found? Any > input on this rule?
>From what I hear, SA 2.70 will only scan the appropriate attachment types. -- Chris Thielen Easily generate SpamAssassin rules to catch obfuscated spam phrases (0BFU$C/\TED SPA/\/\ P|-|RA$ES): http://www.sandgnat.com/cmos/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
