, his work product
seems fatally flawed.
Personally, I think that Logan's explanation for his poor journalistic
effort is just as weak as his initial work product after whatever effect his
copy editor may have had on it.
/s/ John Parken
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Through the news.spamassassin.org site I found what looks
like a good way for Outlook users to get spam (and ham) into the Bayes sa-learn.
Dan Kohn suggestions is at http://www.dankohn.com/archives/000323.html.
After special handling for mail previously processed by SA
that is now
The .procmailrc rule to send mail determined by SA to be spam is pretty
easy -
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
/home/user/Mail/spam
In other words, if the X-Spam-Status header (added by SA) is Yes, then the
mail is delivered to the spam mailbox specified in the path (your path my
of course be
Robert:
Thanks for the help.
Something like
body RM_b_V-drug/V[Ii1\|[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
but for the subject, right?
Yes, this is along the lines of what I wanted since, at least my version of
SA, has only a rudimentary test in the body, which does not of ourse address
the Subject line
Head for http://www.exit0.us and
http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm -- you'll
find plenty of rules there that will give you a good start at building
your own rule base, including my own V-drug body test which can be easily
converted into a subject header test
When I run -
spamassassin -d --lint
on my newly created local.cf file, I get Command not Found as the only
reply. Does that mean there is a problem or that the test proceeded to the
end of the file?
/s/ John
---
This sf.net email is
the heck out of me. I need the
syntax for rules and the location where they go (for systems-wide use).
Your help in pointing me in the correct direction would be most appreciated.
/s/ John Parken
---
This sf.net email is sponsored
