Ramdas Phutane wrote: > On 4/19/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Michael Monnerie wrote: >>> On Dienstag, 18. April 2006 17:20 Carl Chipman wrote: >>> >>>> I'm getting a bunch of these >>>> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0 >>>> tests=BAYES_50: 1.567,HTML_70_80: 0.039,HTML_MESSAGE: 0.001 >>>> >>> Your message gave me: >>> >>> X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=17.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 >>> tests=DRUGS_ERECTILE=0.1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, >>> RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, URIBL_AB_SURBL=3.306, >>> URIBL_BLACK=3, URIBL_OB_SURBL=2.617, URIBL_SBL=1.094, >>> URIBL_SC_SURBL=3.6, >>> URIBL_WS_SURBL=1.533 >>> >>> So you should use some SARE rules: http://rulesemporium.com >>> >> >> Why should Carl use SARE rules to catche this spam? None of the rules >> you cite are SARE rules.. Not a single one. >> >> They're all standard SA 3.x rules, except URIBL_BLACK, which isn't from >> SARE, it's from uribl.com. >> >> >> > Hi , > > I had the same problem tried upgrading the SARE rules but still no result. > Later I upgraded my Fred's Rules set & I am getting 9.x plus hits on such > spam. > http://www.rulesemporium.com/other-rules.htm > > Thanx & Regards > Ram >
Of course not.. none of the SARE rules cover these spams. Really, from looking at the original problem, I'll need to create an "antidrug31.cf" and "antidrug30.cf" that patches the drug rules. I need to add "/" as a potential substitute for "i" and "&" as a substitute for "a".
