I realise that my English isn't that good, but I think what I've written is pretty clear.
I never disputed the fact the rules were there. If you look at my original post, I say 'turned off', not 'removed'. I never said I wanted them for Meta rules, I asked for best way to turn then back on again (eventually! :). I am completely open minded re- what 'best' may be ... in fact, the whole point of my post was to discover what folks consider the best option to be. I agree that simply pasting parts of rule files and manuals into your reply is a waste to the list's time ... the least you can expect folks to do is their own basic research, which I have done. But I never asked you or anyone else to do spoon-feed me in this way. I merely asked for high-level direction/opinion ... call it what you will. I think that any confusion that has been created is due to you putting words into my mouth, reading unintended things between the lines, and making too many assumptions about me personally ... like I can't be bothered to look through rule files, and 'one doesn't understand the bad things implied'. I'm guessing you'll require the last word in this exchange, so maybe you could address one technical issue in the process ... Mr Pederson has suggested that META's might be the way to go, rather than reinstating individual rules. I tend towards this opinion myself, but remain open minded. Do you have a technical view on this subject? Thanks again for your time sir. -----Original Message----- From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de] Sent: 23 August 2010 17:11 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: RE: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 10:05 +0100, s...@yacc.co.uk wrote: > > So, no, I guess I'd better not post these trivial rules in public. The > > above hints are a dead give-away already. > > Absolutely not - to do so would be patronising beyond words! Not a dead give-away, you mean? I'm slightly confused. Maybe you shouldn't have snipped the most important part from my previous post. "The rules even *do* exist in the latest 3.3 rule-set. They just happen to not score." Since you apparently want them for meta rules, that's exactly what they are there for. As I said, they still do exist. The rule names did not even change, other than adding the special non-scoring double-underscore prefix. So, mind grepping for the rules!? -- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
