On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 09:01 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Feb 9, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Matt Kettler wrote: > > Jo Rhett wrote: > >> > >> Again, I have a 100% stock SA configuration. > > No you don't have a 100% stock config. There are at least two > > differences relevant to them message you posted: > > > > 1) you have the SARE STOCKS ruleset. LW_STOCK_SPAM4 is NOT a stock > > spamassasssin rule. It's part of an add-on ruleset, not a stock SA > > feature. > > > >> Why do I need a custom rule to work around an FP in the ruleset? > > See above. > > It's really hard not to be really annoyed with this answer. What > kind of nonsense did you think my question was? > > If LW_STOCK_SPAM is a SARE RULE, then I am requesting a revision to > the SARE rule. Why on the gods green earth would you assume that I > wanted a fix in the base distribution for a SARE rule?
Not to start a flame war or anything (yeah, right) but: It's really hard not to be annoyed with your response. If you want a change to a SARE rule, go talk to the SARE people. If you want help from the SA list, please provide accurate information in your requests; it will go a long way towards getting accurate (and helpful) responses.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
